These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Eve just a rental universe! Getting out of hand?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
#121 - 2014-03-23 13:22:01 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
SOV fights get free publicity of the "Biggest Space Battle in History" type and a rush of new subscribers.

This presumably is seen as a good thing.


Errr yeah and then they say how bad things are and they leave.
ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
#122 - 2014-03-23 13:29:39 UTC
Beekeeper Bob wrote:
ImYourMom wrote:
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Northern_Associates.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Greater_Western_Co-Prosperity_Sphere
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Darkness._Citizens

All these are rental, nearly 17 regions and god knows how many systems abut 600+. and thats not all of them. So is it just me seeing something fundamentally wrong here?


this is why we need multiple worlds jus tlike every other MMO or make some fundamental changes that stop this . Becuase alliances like this just control everything, and always will, and most of all this surely isnt what eve was supposed to be about was it?


personally i would like all nullsec to be npc or sov costs need to go up massively.



Don't like how it is?
Can't be bothered to do anything about it yourself?

I heard "Fix it for me, I don't want to actually work to have sov..."

Oh and no comprende "sandbox"? Shocked


this isnt rreally helpful is it? Why do people keep coming back with this silly comment.

Most eve players in new coalitions and alliances are just the same people in old coaltiions. Also can you tell me where suddenly where someone can get 500 supers and 300 titans from please? Magic? I know ill just make it out of thin air shall we? You know it takes many years to do that right? You know that the best pvp alliances in eve just tried and lost right? PL/NC./N3? You know those guys that have elite players and hundreds of titans and supers. You know they just lost right?
SO WHERE THE HELL DO YOU THINK CREATING SOMETHING NEW OR TRYING IT OURSELVES IS GOING TO BE BETTER?
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2014-03-23 13:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Soltys
You're wasting your time on them , IZ.

Though I'd say that mails that you mentioned here are the least of a problem here.

Utter anti-sandbox ******** ideas like:

- many ways to almost instantly teleport anywhere
- reinforce timers going into days long values (inc. dual phases for outposts and ihubs)
- structures having stupid amount of defenses available (hp, shield, regen, and so on)
- the whole sov mechanics being some drunken-insane dreamt out nonsense from a perspective of a sandbox game

Everything is de-facto indestructible and fought always at prescribed hour with defenders dictating rules at close to 0 effort. This is essentially [random mmo] battleground zerg vs zerg at hour X.

It's not that people wouldn't want to move and bite back. It's that it's utterely pointless - no matter how well prepared, secret and cunning some smaller group of players would be. Starting with "concept" of taking a pos which can go into 40ish hours of reinforce bullshit and ending on dual-mutliday-reinforce bullshit ihubs and outposts.

TBH, if EvE's development started a few years later, there's high chance that assinine idea like "reinforce timer" would be put on anything battleship and larger.

The worst thing is that this "concept" has been repeated for so many years it's taken for granted. People literally feel they are automagically entitled to be able to always defend something and preferably not be able to lose anything ever (aside ships).


Instead of thinking about mechanics that would support proper sandbox - e.g. POS module that creates large pod-like mechanics taking valuables to destined station or bookmark during emergency (e.g. 50% structure left).


Sadly, CCP doesn't give a damn about making any part of nullsec lose-able for current holders. So any discussion or thread about it is essentially pointless.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#124 - 2014-03-23 13:49:34 UTC
The question is: what is so bad in renting?
Without renting, those systems stay empty. With renting they are at least used.
What do you care about the arrangments that allow the residents to survive? Why is it a big deal?

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.

Oxide Ammar
#125 - 2014-03-23 13:57:16 UTC
arabella blood wrote:
The question is: what is so bad in renting?
Without renting, those systems stay empty. With renting they are at least used.
What do you care about the arrangments that allow the residents to survive? Why is it a big deal?


Passive income in 10 figures while you are sitting afk for next CTA is bad thing.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Dave Stark
#126 - 2014-03-23 13:58:12 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
arabella blood wrote:
The question is: what is so bad in renting?
Without renting, those systems stay empty. With renting they are at least used.
What do you care about the arrangments that allow the residents to survive? Why is it a big deal?


Passive income in 10 figures while you are sitting afk for next CTA is bad thing.


so don't join **** tier alliances that have CTAs, and don't be afk. not difficult.
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#127 - 2014-03-23 14:23:23 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
arabella blood wrote:
The question is: what is so bad in renting?
Without renting, those systems stay empty. With renting they are at least used.
What do you care about the arrangments that allow the residents to survive? Why is it a big deal?


Passive income in 10 figures while you are sitting afk for next CTA is bad thing.


U mad because someone reacher than you?
Kodus to them i say.
I dont find anything bad in that. And it sure beats empty systems. You want them empty?

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#128 - 2014-03-23 14:39:35 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You're inability to consider the health of the game and your denial of the broken system which allows you to keep sov without effort is laughable.


but the forest is full of trolls!

Indeed.


Bad Messenger wrote:
it is just one phase on evolving sandbox.

What comes next? is the question.

When there's only one way to take and keep sov, timers, turning up at x time... that's called themepark. Its the only ride in town.


As opposed to infiltrating the the corp which owns those structures, taking control and leaving the alliance or maybe bribing somebody who is that corp to leave and switch sides?

Yes there is only one way to take sov..

Once again you show how little you know of Sov Mechanics and how little imagination you have.

LMAO. So its not sandbox because there's another aweful mechanic that lets a single director disband the work of thousands of players who may have spent hundreds of thousands of man hours working for that particular thing. One bought account or in real life money bribe away from a disband is a feature huh.

You really think this terrible unfixed mechanic is an alternative to the themepark sov war bs :)

That's hilarious.

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..... :)
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#129 - 2014-03-23 16:25:51 UTC
The solution is to just stop renting. It's not like these alliances can police all this space anyway...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
CERA Elitist
The Prometheus Society
#130 - 2014-03-23 17:34:52 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tauranon wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Stop calling it a sandbox when its obviously not given there is only one way to win and lose sov. One way. Not two, not three. ONE themepark way and that's to turn up at x time to face up to 37,000 player coaltions.

And that was as I already showed, created by an EvE PLAYER, turned dev, turn back to EvE player.


No, the way to win Sov is to ensure that 37,000 character alliances have pressing reasons to NOT turn up to contest your timers.

ie

guns.
politics.
spies.
opportunism.

etc.

That's horsecrap. 37,000 people is more than the populations of the smallest 30 countries in the world. There is literally nothing you can do as a normal EVE player, corporation or alliance against that many people but to pay to rent, try join the coalition or go to npc space and give up on the major element of the game which is sov.

There are more people in CFC than active servicemen in my countries defence force. That's the reason there is one huge blue blur in the map I posted above.

Look at how rediculous this is - whats CCP's plan - nothing.

Eh. Fallacious argument.
RRNL
Perkone
#131 - 2014-03-23 17:44:02 UTC
The Technetium mistke lead to the power increase of just a hand full of allainces, now its broken due to that.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#132 - 2014-03-23 17:50:06 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

LMAO. So its not sandbox because there's another aweful mechanic that lets a single director disband the work of thousands of players who may have spent hundreds of thousands of man hours working for that particular thing. One bought account or in real life money bribe away from a disband is a feature huh.

You really think this terrible unfixed mechanic is an alternative to the themepark sov war bs :)

That's hilarious.



What's really hilarious is you looking down on one guy being able to disband an alliance when you constantly talked about how one guy (YOU) should have been able to destroy sov structures if you wanted to (despite the thousands of man hour people had to put in to take sov so they could plant thos structures in the 1st place).

You problem as usual is that you can't see the big picture and don't understand that the world does not just exist for you. You are a solo player who plays in the least active timezone, SOV null (like high end wormhole space) is group space. People like you have high sec, low sec, low end wormholes and npc null (with it's npc stations and resources that cannot be permanently denied to any player, unlike sov null) to play around in, yet that's not enough, you must also have SOV null in your pocket too.

In other words, you aren't supposed to be able to affect the coaltions in a major way unless you recruit your own coaltion (or are a brilliant spy). You'd understand this is your perspective weren't so narrow and self serving.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#133 - 2014-03-23 18:08:06 UTC
RRNL wrote:
The Technetium mistke lead to the power increase of just a hand full of allainces, now its broken due to that.


The tech change wasn't meant to fix the root problems, it was designed to give the established powers something to do.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2014-03-23 18:27:47 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
RRNL wrote:
The Technetium mistke lead to the power increase of just a hand full of allainces, now its broken due to that.


The tech change wasn't meant to fix the root problems, it was designed to give the established powers something to do.



The tech bungle started as a method of conflict driving.....except the players outsmarted CCP (like always) and basically locked everyone else out.


Renting isn't new, that was how the southern alliances (with little to no tech) got by for years and years.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#135 - 2014-03-23 21:53:36 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
What's really hilarious is you looking down on one guy being able to disband an alliance when you constantly talked about how one guy (YOU) should have been able to destroy sov structures if you wanted to (despite the thousands of man hour people had to put in to take sov so they could plant thos structures in the 1st place).
You are being unfair. He doesn't want to destroy sov structures solo. That would be silly. He wants to be able to destroy thousands of man-hours of work with a small corp of say 20-30 guys. Geez! Total difference....
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#136 - 2014-03-23 23:12:26 UTC
The main problem with SoV is that there is no insentive for people who do not live there to go there to make isk. You can do exploration but everyone is in a cloaky ship.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#137 - 2014-03-24 00:23:14 UTC
I think the point which a lot of people are missing, is that it should be easier for a small upcoming alliance to be able to claim at least some small undefended part of sov nullsec.

Just like in real life, if you spread your forces too thinly, there is some strategic disadvantage to that. Current eve mechanics mean that there is no such disadvantage in spreading themselves over the whole of sov null sec, hence the blue doughnut.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2014-03-24 00:29:59 UTC
Fix bottom up income, sov, and PVE to solve this problem.

E: And nerf highsec.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2014-03-24 01:18:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
La Nariz wrote:


E: And nerf highsec.

Broken record has spoken.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Baron Chauman
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2014-03-24 02:51:35 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
The main problem with SoV is that there is no insentive for people who do not live there to go there to make isk. You can do exploration but everyone is in a cloaky ship.


Tell that to the two guys who've been ratting in our sov for months. They seem happy with it, since they keep coming back even if we shoot them sometimes.