EVE General Discussion

"just get 35-40k people to follow you, how hard can it be, having 4-5 years to take sov is a valid game mechanic and we shouldn't change it"


Face it, in history large empires have crumbled because they expanded too much too far and forgot what they were built for and hired anyone they could (mercernaries, outsiders etc.), in EvE you can do all that with absolutely zero consequences, CFC can recruit every single person in EvE and it would not harm them one bit, sov null is completely ******** and is only used as false media coverage for CCP.

Because that's not what happened to the last sov dominating alliance, either?

But just because you hate this particular one is somehow a reason for CCP to intervene in the sandbox, and reset the progress that a group of players have earned over the years. Like the very fact of such a thing happening wouldn't be a deathknell for the game.

Didn't say CCP should intervene and wipe out the "amazing progress" coalitions have done, but how can you claim it's a sandbox when all you can reply is put up or shut up, there is no freedom in null and you can only play the game in one way, either kiss ass and be a boot licker or somehow convince a director (which are mostly alts) to betray his alliance.

are you serious in what it would take years to achieve the goal? why would ANYONE want to take sov if it's going to take 5 years for it? and for what?

but thank your for ignoring the rest of my post, please prove again how valid and legit current game mechanics are where someone can have power projection over hundreds of systems and have no use for most of them, where the only threat to a coalition is another coalition of the same numbers, there's no outwitting or outsmarting the other just who amasses the greatest numbers.

Remind me in 3 years then when null is "vibrant" again and the same cycle repeats itself.

So how about we buff nullsec, so it's worth holding those systems for any reason besides just planting the flag. Then people will have an incentive to try for it.

Because that's half the problem, you know. That a lot of it's really not worth the trouble of taking back.

Don't stop there. I'm tired of short-sighted "take a little off the top" balances.

The sov system has lacked any real inspiration or overall design goals since the get go. Null is repetitive boring **** in it's current iteration compared to what it could be.

It started out as a "just because" feature, and it's grown by CCP adding arbitrary mechanics that has left sov warfare a series of structure and timer checkboxes needing to be filled . It completely lacks any imagination or unique functional purpose.

You said it, for many there really isn't reason to give a **** about most of it...

and what is worse is that while mechanics might leave the value of any one particular 0.0 system as "take it or leave it" for a smaller guy (hell he can just go do the same thing in npc null or higher sec space)

the mechanics actually give incentive for large holdings by the king-of-the-hill, because it facilitates the one thing that keeps him king-of-the-hill.... to increase the networks that allow them to project their power.


Now this doesn't make that space worthless. Far from it. But worthless enough for enough where you start down a "can't beat em join em" game.

It's worthwhile to rent, but not to really fight for space
(even if you could compete against a largest entity that can appear on your doorstep as easily as they walk out their own front door) .

Impossible to be self-sufficient in, which again helps the big guys with the larger logistics routes/services and further leads to the 'get under the same large umbrella' reality that is null mentality.

We're essentially encouraging sov. monopolies when we should be doing the exact opposite. And yes, the value of a null system is huge to that. And I don't mean isk/hr, but functionality, features and content.

But it's only part of a multifaceted problem.

You can't incentivize someone into changing how they enjoy playing the game.
This is why the sec's shouldn't and can't be balanced against each other.

Bears will be bears, pirate will be arrr, and null will be null.

Don't try to turn one player type into another.
Won't work. EVER.
It's ice skating uphill.

Identify the shortcomings and imbalances in the mechanics might force someone who more enjoys one form of gameplay to reluctantly have to fall back on another

.... or cause a group to embrace a more passive and 'blue everyone' mentality where they might otherwise prefer stabbing people in the back and shooting them.

(which again all comes back to power projection, scaling things towards a pure 'numbers in your blob' game)

Lots of dudes ITT who both want to turn owning sov space into a literal 24/7 job for us and want all the riches for themselves at little to no effort, preferably solo.

Would you like a pony too guys?

Stealth "you want to force us out of highsec," no and yes you can encourage people to do things by nerfing and buffing things. Hence nerfing highsec is a good idea.

Yeah, you did.



Idk what you think "exact opposite" means, but the rest of us heard "we should be actively discouraging any sov monopoly".

Which means that you think there is such a thing as winning too much. You've outright said it.

Easier. Having to use out of game means and metagaming to identify your own allies is indicative of a failure of game mechanics.