These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2014-01-19 18:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Agondray wrote:
interesangt wrote:
conclusion.. remove caps from game, sad to say this, but there aint no other way..

Yeah that will solve blabbing instead of a mix fleet if caps and subs, it'll just be how every many subcaps stuck staring at each other in 10% tidi

Yeah its not Caps its Naps (aka coalitions).

Actually thinking about it, cool-downs would probably be a buff to coalitions who are best able to stock multiple fleets in multiple locations while smaller alliances would be stuck with the nerf.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2014-01-19 19:13:34 UTC
If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#243 - 2014-01-19 19:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
WarFireV wrote:
If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item.

This is very true.

Like I said earlier, there needs to be more strategy in using the big money items and even using mass numbers. Right now, none exist. There is no reason not to bring EVERYONE in the biggest ships possible.
Anna Outamo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#244 - 2014-01-19 19:26:24 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item.


the answer is obvious, like Malcanis has said
just make every Bridge/Gate jump cost fuel
that fuel being Aurum. One PLEX Worth of Aurum covers you for a full day of gate travel and 4 titan bridges or Jump Drive Operations, and you can spend additional Aurum to make your jump drive act as if it's a Cal V Jump Drive.

Obvious answer, simple to implement.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#245 - 2014-01-19 19:28:23 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
CCP need to continue the ship rebalancing, but instead of new mobile structures (which may impact new POSs in some way that hasn't be unveiled yet) they need to fix A) Sov and B) POSs, and the game would be far more playable.

Mah Boobz wrote:
I wonder, if CCP hadn't spent all that money on Dust and WOD, and instead, put it into the Eve servers (were the money was made) if we could actually have the fights CCP brag about?


CCP already had military grade hardware, the only thing to be done to improve it would be to rewrite the entire game's code, and that would likely take years if they completely forsake working on the game as it currently is, and there would still be bugs to be discover.

baltec1 wrote:
Too many caps, too many caps on all sides.



Cap proliferation is a problem. But you're only mad about it because you don't have as many as N3, otherwise you'd be laughing your ass off at everyone complaining.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2014-01-19 19:29:48 UTC
Anna Outamo wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item.


the answer is obvious, like Malcanis has said
just make every Bridge/Gate jump cost fuel
that fuel being Aurum. One PLEX Worth of Aurum covers you for a full day of gate travel and 4 titan bridges or Jump Drive Operations, and you can spend additional Aurum to make your jump drive act as if it's a Cal V Jump Drive.

Obvious answer, simple to implement.


Should do this, then only PL will use jump drives and bridges Cool
Roxie Glitz
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#247 - 2014-01-19 19:32:52 UTC
The coalitions are too huge in my opinion. Some betrayals would be cool, so maybe 10 larger blocks than just cfc/n3
Marsha Mallow
#248 - 2014-01-19 19:33:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.


herein lies the problem
nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's


  • half formed
  • lacks mental refinement
  • has no basing in reality or basic logic
  • totally backwards
  • supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
  • yours


I seem to have somehow upset you, whoever you are.

I can't tell you how bad your content-free crying makes me, because I like being truthful.

One of those rapacious ones you mentioned recently, reduced to impotent raging on gd due to a kugutsumen.com perma ban afaik. Might be one of the newer red posters tho, hard to tell. You can write Kugutsumen now btw I think, it's been unbanned for ages, just wasn't announced.

Re this discussion, whatever Garth is burbling on about in terms of player directed efforts to address this problem shouldn't be entirely dismissed. The angle here seems to be "force CCP to change power projection now as this is the root of the problem". Supercoalitions need to be smacked into the ground imo. Nerfing projection is part of that but doesn't get to the root of the problem. You can use HED to try to arm wrestle CCP into a review of sov mechanics and power projection, but if supercoalitions still dominate in 3 years what then? It's almost as though this situation has been engineered, since it was obvious months ago nullsec was aligning into the no-fun equivalent of RVB.

ps. Marlona for CSM? Some really interesting stuff so far, wtb more

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#249 - 2014-01-19 19:46:04 UTC
What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2014-01-19 19:50:53 UTC
There are two main perspectives you can have about the root cause really.

HP and structures and timers mean people have to throw in as many people as they can into a sov timer.

or

People throw in as many people into a sov timer as they can because there is no reason not to.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2014-01-19 19:52:32 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.

This is the root of the problem

This alleviates it to a large extent

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Molenius Morrowinger
Doomheim
#252 - 2014-01-19 19:55:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.


Maybe power projection should not be linear but rather logarithmic. Thus effort of bringing more people will not worth the benefit of doing it. And the optimal point must be around the numbers which server can deal with minus extra buffer.
Xadus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#253 - 2014-01-19 19:56:29 UTC
I was there
was not fun.

CCP fix this game.
Marsha Mallow
#254 - 2014-01-19 19:56:41 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.

Does the super-coalition exist purely because of power projection?

I'd argue it's at least equally player-driven or due to other game mechanics for several reasons.

Here's one:

  • Alts. Any nerf to jump drives will result in people splitting characters up in various regions. Marlona's remarks go some way to addressing suicide podding/timer issues but that only relates to one character. Most hardcore nullbears have multiple characters and/or accounts. If projection is nerfed to the point alliances are fixed to one region, there's nothing to stop them rolling secondary corps/alliances via alts for surrounding areas and bypassing the fix.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#255 - 2014-01-19 19:58:00 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Bottom line is there is little to no reasons to not blob and to not bring the biggest ship you can find. Solve that, and you fix a lot of our problems. Everyone piling into one system onto one grid should have real penalties while you are not home.
I completely agree with you. I feel as though there are different approaches that we can take to get to the solution.

The one that Malcanis have suggested are more "macro" level changes, which are basically a complete overhaul of the way jump mechanics work in the game. The changes suggested would in a way solve the problem, but I feel as though this would just make the game more difficult for the average player, and would be just adding another pain point to people who are increasingly feeling as though nullsec is not for them. They might be seen as another "nerf nullsec" change, much like the 5% bounty nerf that comes with the ESS and be met with hostility.

I would like to see more "micro" level changes, where there are not additional limitations added based on ship type, but rather more pressure be put on fleets to be able to move around quickly or be split into more fleets effectively. Capital fleets, to a lesser extent battleship fleets, and very large tidi-inducing fleets are pretty slow movers and vulnerable to asymmetric warfare when they are combat-ready in system. The new warp speed changes have amplified this shortcoming. This would make individual fights more strategically interesting and make wars more about fighting and skill rather than logistical ability.

Both approaches would change the game for the better and solve most of the problems that we are having. The macro level approach is more dependent on logistics and in-game timers. I feel that the micro level approach would be more reliant on players and hence, better for the game.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#256 - 2014-01-19 19:58:02 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Agondray wrote:
interesangt wrote:
conclusion.. remove caps from game, sad to say this, but there aint no other way..

Yeah that will solve blabbing instead of a mix fleet if caps and subs, it'll just be how every many subcaps stuck staring at each other in 10% tidi

Yeah its not Caps its Naps (aka coalitions).

Actually thinking about it, cool-downs would probably be a buff to coalitions who are best able to stock multiple fleets in multiple locations while smaller alliances would be stuck with the nerf.


Smaller alliances can, by defintion, be in different places.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#257 - 2014-01-19 20:00:54 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Bottom line is there is little to no reasons to not blob and to not bring the biggest ship you can find. Solve that, and you fix a lot of our problems. Everyone piling into one system onto one grid should have real penalties while you are not home.
I completely agree with you. I feel as though there are different approaches that we can take to get to the solution.

The one that Malcanis have suggested are more "macro" level changes, which are basically a complete overhaul of the way jump mechanics work in the game. The changes suggested would in a way solve the problem, but I feel as though this would just make the game more difficult for the average player, and would be just adding another pain point to people who are increasingly feeling as though nullsec is not for them. They might be seen as another "nerf nullsec" change, much like the 5% bounty nerf that comes with the ESS and be met with hostility.

I would like to see more "micro" level changes, where there are not additional limitations added based on ship type, but rather more pressure be put on fleets to be able to move around quickly or be split into more fleets effectively. Capital fleets, to a lesser extent battleship fleets, and very large tidi-inducing fleets are pretty slow movers and vulnerable to asymmetric warfare when they are combat-ready in system. The new warp speed changes have amplified this shortcoming. This would make individual fights more strategically interesting and make wars more about fighting and skill rather than logistical ability.

Both approaches would change the game for the better and solve most of the problems that we are having. The macro level approach is more dependent on logistics and in-game timers. I feel that the micro level approach would be more reliant on players and hence, better for the game.


Can you give some examples of what these "micro level" changes would be? because it sounds like you're decribing a new sov system, and that sounds even more macro than a combined jumpclone/bridge/cyno jump timer pool.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
CroisisCZ
Anoikis Exploration
#258 - 2014-01-19 20:10:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.


Isnt the root of the problem a simple fact that most of the 0.0 came to a point where you are either with CFC, against CFC or mostly insignificant?

Blue donut is what makes people fight super large battles because there is nothing else to do.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#259 - 2014-01-19 20:16:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Can you give some examples of what these "micro level" changes would be? because it sounds like you're decribing a new sov system, and that sounds even more macro than a combined jumpclone/bridge/cyno jump timer pool.


Reduce the amount of timers needed to take a system. There would be more do-or-die timers, more than likely there would be more than one coming out at once.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#260 - 2014-01-19 20:17:50 UTC

Power projection is an issue in EvE, but I don't think that's going to solve the 4k battles bringing the server to its knees.

To solve the problem of "too many people in system", we need to implement a mechanic that gets people back OUT of system. The only ingame means (at the moment) to force someone out of a system is by podding them.

Is there perhaps another mechanic that may be implemented to get players back out of system, ideally before the server goes bonkers?

Off the cuff example:
A new AOE mechanic that teleports everyone on grid randomly into other systems within the constellation. This could from a player driven device that causes it, or it could be a "feature" of space destabilizing because (insert lore) and the server automatically implements this anytime server load exceeds some threshhold from some time period.