These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A message everyone in HED-GP can come together about

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Raylucy
Doomheim
#141 - 2014-01-19 12:47:12 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Raylucy wrote:
from the looks of it, the other side enjoyed the turkey shoot and the amount of tears that will flood this thread and probably many others.

Nobody's angry about losing dreads. Nobody's angry about tidi. They're angry about the game not working despite the tidi.

not from what I saw, the whole "lets get ccp to apologise to us for their screw up and get them to reimburse our lost ships like usual when we welp hard" comments posted over and over in one of the streams for last nights fight and a few other places, which was most likely ordered by dbrb as the upcoming reimbursement phase. lets face it, when he orders something you guys jump, you don't need to ask "how high?" because you guys are pretty much used to it.

The game has been around for 10yrs+ now and you'd think goons would of learned from experience not to do something like this with the amount of numbers in the system and tidi. There has been countless times I can think of personally where a fleet welped due to desync jump in issues and I'm pretty sure that any goon who could at least think for themselves would easily think of several too and know yesterday was a bad idea but the welping still happened and it should be accepted
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#142 - 2014-01-19 12:58:28 UTC
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#143 - 2014-01-19 13:10:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Straight
Xavier Quo
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#144 - 2014-01-19 13:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Xavier Quo
Can someone explain to me why the complete removal of SOV etc is not a viable option?

as in, if you can defend a system, it's yours. If you can't, it isn't.

To me that would alleviate both;

-The growing blue doughnut by making a large portion of non-npc null unclaimed (as actual active defence is harder than dropping TCU's in dead systems and doing little else), giving smaller entities much more chance at claiming system(s), in a permanent or nomadic fashion.

-The concentration of fleets into technically unmanagable sizes, making intersystem warfare much more interesting in terms of strategy and tactics, smaller groupings across nodes, quicker flash conflicts arising from no notice timers, etc. ofc large battles would still occur but they would not be the only decisive battles going on.

perhaps the addition of some defense unit deployables on gates, belts etc, with some mechanic to discourage turtling would be needed as well. would also promote interesting intrasystem conflicts as well rather than stressing one single grid every time a system is contested.

It does predicate the need for even small null sec corps to have a fairly global userbase, but for much more interesting conflicts that doesn't seem like such a bad tradeoff compared to what we have now.

I am sure this would've been discussed before, any links appreciated.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#145 - 2014-01-19 13:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Do it.

EDIT: Something I said on that other forum about Capital mobility that is heading the way you are suggesting:

Me wrote:

One thought that has kept percolating back to the front of my mind is that currently capitals are far more mobile. As much as I love flying Battleships, and find their new warp speeds a little torturous, it makes sense that the bigger harder-hitting ships have to travel much slower, so if you want fast response, send out the Inties, and take Cruisers instead of the bigger ships.

But jump-drives seem to fly in the face of this. Capital ships are the fastest moving ships in the game for crossing the universe, and that just seems backwards. I've wondered (but never thought of a way that isn't not shockingly bad) whether introducing a cooldown of jump drive activation, maybe with an exponential increase after each jump would prevent the galaxy crossing and counter-crossing which makes defending all your space with all your caps so easy.

Say for a off-the wall example. First jump has a one minute cooldown on your jump drive, with a 24 hour timer in which any further jumps expand this cooldown. Each jump after within this 24 hours (that resets each jump) doubles the cooldown (so second jump, 2 minute cooldown, third jump, 4 minutes (so a dread would still be able to jump after seige ends on the third jump, but gets trickier after that), fourth 8, fifth 16, sixth 32, seventh over an hour). This means if you need to move your caps a long distance, you have to factor in the time, and the increased vulnerability with each jump, and maybe run convoys over several days. It means you might have to consider multiple cap stagings across your space, as you simply wont be able to rely a getting cap support fast enough from further than three or four jumps away.
Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#146 - 2014-01-19 13:35:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Niding
Malcanis wrote:
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Well, 24 hour cooldown on capitals sounds extreme, but the scale of the Tranqulity universe is laughable at the moment.
Everywhere is "neighbourhood" these days.

Maybe you assign your character/account to a given system as HQ and the cooldown increases the futher away from the HQ you get? (in addition to decreased jumprange/bridge)
Ofcourse, people with alts will just get around this by having characters spread around, but it would somewhat hamper supercapital movements, since relativily few people got more than 1 titan/supercarrier.
And jumpclones should not affect the HQ assignment.
And changing of HQ system should have a rather long cooldown. Once a week? :P

I got several supers and normal capitals, and wont really enjoy having limitations to them.
But at the same time I do not really see the current mechanics work satisfactory.

Its a discussion you should atleast bring up Malcanis.
Admiral Snowbird
Perkone
Caldari State
#147 - 2014-01-19 13:36:15 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.



rebalancing/rework SOV and caps since 2010 - changes comming soon! (2027 or smth)
Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#148 - 2014-01-19 13:37:42 UTC
A lot of complaints every time this happens. And it will happen again. You're not gonna change the behaviour of the players and CCP can't fix it.

The End...
Rumtin
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#149 - 2014-01-19 13:40:26 UTC
You're all going about this the wrong way. The problem isn't blobs that overload the nodes causing the server to crash. The problem isn't the sov mechanics and how it takes over 200+ people to grind them down. The problem isn't timers that ensure EVERYONE and their ******* mothers is online at one time to jump into a single system. The problem doesn't rest with CCP's slow response time to properly reinforce the node so the players play at 10% TiDi before they flat out disconnect.

The true problem lies in the lack of useless deployable objects, and the lack of nerfs null sec recieves. These talks about big fights will be fixed because there are new deployables that are in most cases, never going to be used as intended and are infact ALREADY being banned from use by several null sec alliances (ESS). The only way to fix lag is to make sure that you deploy the "Anti-Lag Mobile Depot" (available 2025).

Thanks to CCP's good friends over in EA, you can make sure all your troubles are washed away with all these new ideas of useless content that our development staff spent the past few months of time and money for your enjoyment!

Seriously CCP, time to pull your head out and stop wasting our money and your time.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#150 - 2014-01-19 13:55:48 UTC
Andski wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I anyone "enjoyed" that fight , then they more than likely "enjoy" being beaten and whipped in some BDSM club.


some people still find it more fun than shooting red crosses over and over in some blinged legion, so


A little scary that you'd rather spend five hours watching your computer lag out than actually interact with your ship.

I bet even more people would rather shoot crosses than not play their blinged out dread for hours on end. Loooooooooow standards.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2014-01-19 13:56:47 UTC
Hyperbole about capital and jumping changes don't really help a whole lot. It would make people more frustrated then actually help EvE as a whole.

Lets just look back for a moment. Besides the fact that not everything in Dominion was implemented, one of the reasons it was put into place was so there would be more set piece battles. Now after many years and many fixes we may have reached the pinnacle of what is possible in set piece battles in EvE.

Like I said before CCP is not to blame for what happened, it just possibly shows that maybe something does need to changed. There is more then one way of going about it, but the first step is realizing something needs to happen.
Djana Libra
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#152 - 2014-01-19 14:00:30 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.

how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know.


multiple monitors, play bf4/dota2 on main screen while occasionally looking at the other screen to see if your guns have finally cycled
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#153 - 2014-01-19 14:02:33 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead. Sprinkle in some of the ideas floating around for making Supers easier to kill/easier to replace/just as tough to initially build, and then touch up sob mechanics, and CCP might be able to social engineer a solution to a software problem.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
#154 - 2014-01-19 14:06:14 UTC
0.0 blob warefare has scaled up too much. Back in 2007 there were multiple small coalitions and now we have CFC and PLect coalition.

That is the real problem with the result that the fleets have grown. The exponential isk earning from being in a coalition makes capital cost pennies compared to gain income.

Getting other sov mechanics is only one side of the problem, the other side is the coalistion forming.

The true question is, what has led to these problems. I can identify several factors:
-Too big coalistions
-Too many supers
-Too many HP (sov structures, supers ect)
-Times requir formups

Now the why's:
-Why are their too big coalistions: isk benefits
-Why are there too many supers: due too much isk income alliance/coalitions (past & present)
-Why is there too many HP: i dont know, ask CCP
-Why are there timers that requir formups: i dont know, ask CCP

So basicly, its all about the isk. Solutions:
-Tax forming coalistions soo much that it isnt worth it
-Nerf alliacne/coalitions income soo much that they cant toss around free supers and reimbeurs fleet easly.

Its all about ISK and CCP (and thats also about isk)
Ospie
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#155 - 2014-01-19 14:12:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ospie
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.



This. Until force projection is nerfed hard nullsec is always going to throw as many people into a fight as they possibly can, and we're always going to be back to "whoever is there first is autowinnar".

Currently the most fundamental problem with force projection as it is, is that it encourages large coalitions. Imagine eve without capital ships again, it isn't viable to move thousands of people across the universe to attack one system, that would leave your borders undefended - smaller coalitions would be more viable as you don't need to worry about your neighbours bringing in their friends from the other side of the universe to bail them out, indeed small coalitions could be aggressive. Limiting logistics performed by jump freighters / carriers would promote local industry backbones in nullsec coalitions, and in turn also require more ship movement between high/low/null which would promote lowsec activity.

Perhaps some creative mechanics could be looked at; cynos misfiring causing them to cut out after a few seconds.. add some risk.. More cynos currently active in a system the less stable they get. Dunno, just some thoughts.
Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#156 - 2014-01-19 14:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Niding
WarFireV wrote:
Hyperbole about capital and jumping changes don't really help a whole lot. It would make people more frustrated then actually help EvE as a whole.

Lets just look back for a moment. Besides the fact that not everything in Dominion was implemented, one of the reasons it was put into place was so there would be more set piece battles. Now after many years and many fixes we may have reached the pinnacle of what is possible in set piece battles in EvE.

Like I said before CCP is not to blame for what happened, it just possibly shows that maybe something does need to changed. There is more then one way of going about it, but the first step is realizing something needs to happen.



I kinda agree with you about the "jump changes" issue, tho I dont think this game would suffer from some reduction in mobility.

What do you think about moon value/system yield is affected by system utilization?

There are military, industrial etc index, and this could in turn affect the yield/value of the assets in the system. Be it moongoo or whatnot.
This would force utilization of the space if you want to make major isk (beyond market), and discourage to a certain point "afk moon empires".

You could counter with "this will just increase the influx of bots" but thats another discussion.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2014-01-19 14:24:35 UTC
More utilization in Nullsec would be a good thing overall, but there isn't much incentive to "keep it" in nullsec. There needs to be greater industry in nullsec overall.

Force projection is sort of a crutch. People will always find a way to throw as many people into a system if they feel they have to.
Wesley Otsdarva
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2014-01-19 14:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Wesley Otsdarva
Malcanis wrote:

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.



Do It. It's my belief that capitals can move FAR too quickly across the map. When my dominix takes a whole hell of a lot longer just to jump a few systems. It's part of what made the big blue doughnut what it is today. The big boys and their toys can drop on grid the second someone tries to throw eggs at their sov. From anywhere in New Eden.


Just make Null have the capabilities to be a little more industrial so things don't require a JF for supplies and we're golden. As I want to be able to live out in null, and not have to go to high sec everytime I want some odds and ends.
Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#159 - 2014-01-19 14:48:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Niding
WarFireV wrote:
More utilization in Nullsec would be a good thing overall, but there isn't much incentive to "keep it" in nullsec. There needs to be greater industry in nullsec overall.

Force projection is sort of a crutch. People will always find a way to throw as many people into a system if they feel they have to.


People might find a way to get into system, but it will be much more effort and timeconsuming.
And conflicts that you usually would meddle with today would require too much effort to bother with if changes in mobility
was implimented.

Like many people these days, Ive been in groups zipping back and forth between x amounts of regions within 10-20 minutes, killing stuff with impunity at a moments notice.
Im not gonna deny its good fun being in the group dealing the pain, but such extreme level of mobility seems a bit over the top, creating some apathy to it. No matter where you turn, there is a cyno with xyz amount of guys at the other end ready to kill you.

Could always hope for more local wars with reduction in mobility.

Im very aware that no matter what changes CCP makes to the core mechanics, people will do their best to adapt and overcome the hurdles.
But shouldnt stop CCP from trying to "tweak" their game. Make changes, see what happens and adjust as needed.
Bland Inquisitor
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#160 - 2014-01-19 14:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bland Inquisitor
We are not talking about a new problem here, we are talking about THE problem. One that could of easily been fixed if CCP would invest its energies towards a solution instead of wasting time on other ventures such as Dust and World of Darkness.

I see two options open to CCP that would be acceptable to the player base;

1. A complete re-make write of the game, they have most of the time consuming factors taken care of so its not like they would be going back to the drawing board. They have the content, textures, models, infrastructure and manpower to be able to do so, why create an entirely new game such as Dust or WOD when your flagship title (the one that provides you all your income) is in dire need of an overhaul?

2. An entire game mechanic overhaul to change the overall objectives within 0.0.

The simplest way to do so would be to implement a hard restriction on stressing the server out. I would use a % base damage tick on all hulls in space based on the level of TIDI in system. It stands to reason that if the amount of ships in space can slow down time they can also cause an electrical storm that causes damage. So at 50% tidi you start doing 10% Total EHP per minute in system which isn't effected by resistances. If you get to the stage where its 1% TIDI your going to be doing 90% total EHP. In essence your going to destroy everything in that system within 2 minutes.

A soft restriction would be implemented by rewards similar to incursions. Think of it like if there are more than 100 ships firing missiles at an IHUB the missiles start to collide and you actually start to lose overall DPS.

Finally I would like to see each player slot in a corporation mean something, Make it so that corporations have to be selective of their pilots. Scale that up also so alliances have to be selective of their member corps. Its always baffled me that there is no limitations on scale within eve, things like running costs, food and water, transport and other limiting factors of real conflicts are not present in this game which inevitably leads to the N+1 issue.

End of the day if EvE conflicts are won by N+1 and the only limiting factor is amount of players a node can sustain you will ALWAYS have this problem