These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 EVE is becoming just a rental universe now is it?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#81 - 2014-06-03 16:28:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
I dont know about you guys, but this really worries me.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.png

The entire south has become just rental, hundreds and hundreds of systems. Is it just me that sees something fundamentally wrong here?

I dont disagree with renting a few systems out you own, but literally taking over regions purely to rent is another thing. This surely goes against what eve is about? Coalitions just having to do absolute minimum effort to hold these regions, dont even have to live in them! But its only the huge amount of supers and titans that stops anyone else even having a slight chance. Trillions and trillions of isk, and it will only get worse as the more money the more supers and titans etc etc.

Will CCP ever do anything about this? Is it too late to? is eve heading in the wrong direction. Personally i think something needs to change but i think its too late and eve is heading for a disaster.

troll away or not Big smile


0.0 has reached the stable state implied by the combination of Dominion sov mechanics and grossly overpowered force projection.

Force projection needs to be hugely, radically, massively scaled back. At the moment, it is possible move a capital fleet from one end of the map to the other in less than half an hour: the largest ships in EVE are also the quickest to move around. The logical implication of this is that you need to be able to defend yourself from everybody in 0.0; if they're in a coalition, then you have to be in a coalition. If your coalition is weaker than their coalition then there is nowhere to hide, no way to use terrain to meet them on equal terms a la Thermopylae. So you have to join a larger group to fight them. And if your coalition is stronger, then equally they need to increase the size of their coalition to survive.

And so on until... you have two roughly equal size groups.

As we do now.

The Dominion sov system only enables this state of affairs. With remote timer griefing, it takes a week to conquer even an undefended station system. The defender need only win a single fight to reverse all the progress made in that system. Thus large groups can ignore attempts by smaller groups to snipe off chunks of their territory when they're deployed far away; they can ignore the problem for 6 days, jump back on the 7th, restore all damage, then return to the front.

So until CCP strongly reduce power projection and rework the sov system, then 0,0 will be:~~

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean....


You know i'm your bro and all (Malcanis for CSM 26!!!!!), but you serioulsy risk running afoul of your own law with this one.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#82 - 2014-06-03 16:34:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


De gustibus non est disputandem I suppose. If the current state of 0.0 is to your taste, then no changes need be made, I suppose.

But I and almost everyone I have ever spoken to in 0.0 would prefer a far more finely textured political map, where far smaller group sizes were viable.


Ok, I can see that

But given the parameters under which the game operates;
Will not it be the case that without artificial barriers to the control of power that make aiming for an Empire of your own impossible this will always be the status?

In other words;

Is it more fun to have a thousand fiefdoms scrabbling in the dirt with no chance of advantage than the natural progression to player owned Empires, which, if allowed to mature, should be able to threaten the NPC empires, possibly (someday) leading to no NPC power blocks bigger than individual PvE generating corps?

I can perfectly accept that the former would appeal to a large number of people, but given human nature I find the latter a more realistic reflection of how a universe such as EvE's would eventually work out.

There are scifi backgrounds where either or even both exist, but Im not sure making Null into The Periphery (to use a Battletech reference) is as interesting a concept as allowing players to form the Successor States

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#83 - 2014-06-03 16:37:48 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:

I dont disagree with renting a few systems out you own, but literally taking over regions purely to rent is another thing.


Here's an exhaustive list of people to whom your approval matters on this subject:



/list

If you have a problem with it, go do something about it.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#84 - 2014-06-03 16:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Ramona McCandless wrote:


There are scifi backgrounds where either or even both exist, but Im not sure making Null into The Periphery (to use a Battletech reference) is as interesting a concept as allowing players to form the Successor States


The Periphery is pretty damn near what null sec is now lol, bandit kingdoms on the edge of both space and relevance.

Evidence:
Quote:
Stereotypes Held by the Inner Sphere High Sec

The common Spheroid high Sec Dweller perceives the Periphery null sec in one of three ways:

The Periphery null Sec is largely unpopulated. The inhabitants are brave (or foolish) scammers and gankers. Little centralized government and economy means poor education and medicine blue ass donut.
Worse, the Periphery Null sec is home of interstellar villains bent on destruction Goons.
The denizens of the Periphery Nullsec, mainly goons, care nothing for the welfare of the Inner Sphere EVE Online.


Cool
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#85 - 2014-06-03 16:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

So until CCP strongly reduce power projection and rework the sov system, then 0,0 will be:~~

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean....


Im sorry but I still dont see whats wrong with any of this

Can someone explain what the problem is?


De gustibus non est disputandem I suppose. If the current state of 0.0 is to your taste, then no changes need be made, I suppose.

But I and almost everyone I have ever spoken to in 0.0 would prefer a far more finely textured political map, where far smaller group sizes were viable.



How will severely nerfing power projection make life better for smaller sized groups?


It works like I said: at the moment if you want to hold territory in 0.0, literally everyone on the map is your neighbour. If you nerf radically power projection then you have a situation where eg: mighty Coalition A based in Deklein can't go pick on smaller group B based in Catch without leaving their home infrastructure vulnerable. Sure, they can go do it, but they'll be risking a lot. Also, Smaller Group B is very unlikely to join in on a cross-map attack on Mighty Group A, so there is less incentive to subdue or eradicate them in the first place.

Therefore mighty coalition A will be inclined to look for more important targets who are closer to home so that they can get back and protect their home systems and CSAA yards in time and which are relevent to their interests.

Meanwhile, because smaller group B isn't faced with immediate threat from Mighty Coalition A (unless they go out of their way to provoke them) they aren't under as much pressure to join Mighty Coalition B out of sheer self defence.

Yes, smaller group B might have slightly increased logistics issues, but the trade-off is that they only need to supply themselves sufficiently to fight a war vs smaller group C in Immensea.

In short, a power projection nerf means that it's not as necessary - or even useful - to keep on expanding bloc sizes until there are literally only 2 megablocs left.

So the tl;dr is that a PP nerf would possibly allow smaller groups to exist at all. After all, it could hardly make there be any fewer.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#86 - 2014-06-03 16:47:23 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

So until CCP strongly reduce power projection and rework the sov system, then 0,0 will be:~~

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean....


Im sorry but I still dont see whats wrong with any of this

Can someone explain what the problem is?


De gustibus non est disputandem I suppose. If the current state of 0.0 is to your taste, then no changes need be made, I suppose.

But I and almost everyone I have ever spoken to in 0.0 would prefer a far more finely textured political map, where far smaller group sizes were viable.



How will severely nerfing power projection make life better for smaller sized groups?


It works like I said: at the moment if you want to hold territory in 0.0, literally everyone on the map is your neighbour. If you nerf radically power projection then you have a situation where eg: mighty Coalition A based in Deklein can't go pick on smaller group B based in Catch without leaving their home infrastructure vulnerable. Sure, they can go do it, but they'll be risking a lot. Also, Smaller Group B is very unlikely to join in on a cross-map attack on Mighty Group A, so there is less incentive to subdue or eradicate them in the first place.

Therefore mighty coalition A will be inclined to look for more important targets who are closer to home so that they can get back and protect their home systems and CSAA yards in time and which are relevent to their interests.

Meanwhile, because smaller group B isn't faced with immediate threat from Mighty Coalition A (unless they go out of their way to provoke them) they aren't under as much pressure to join Mighty Coalition B out of sheer self defence.

Yes, smaller group B might have slightly increased logistics issues, but the trade-off is that they only need to supply themselves sufficiently to fight a war vs smaller group C in Immensea.

In short, a power projection nerf means that it's not as necessary - or even useful - to keep on expanding bloc sizes until there are literally only 2 megablocs left.

So the tl;dr is that a PP nerf would possibly allow smaller groups to exist at all. After all, it could hardly make there be any fewer.


This does not take into account alts (which big alliances could help provide via outlays of isk for PLEX, something small groups cannot do) and even jump clones.

Big alliances would simply "pre-position" ships and alts/clones where they needed (npc null or low sec nearest the point of itnerest) and become even more entrenched than they are now.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#87 - 2014-06-03 16:47:31 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


De gustibus non est disputandem I suppose. If the current state of 0.0 is to your taste, then no changes need be made, I suppose.

But I and almost everyone I have ever spoken to in 0.0 would prefer a far more finely textured political map, where far smaller group sizes were viable.


Ok, I can see that

But given the parameters under which the game operates;
Will not it be the case that without artificial barriers to the control of power that make aiming for an Empire of your own impossible this will always be the status?

In other words;

Is it more fun to have a thousand fiefdoms scrabbling in the dirt with no chance of advantage than the natural progression to player owned Empires, which, if allowed to mature, should be able to threaten the NPC empires, possibly (someday) leading to no NPC power blocks bigger than individual PvE generating corps?

I can perfectly accept that the former would appeal to a large number of people, but given human nature I find the latter a more realistic reflection of how a universe such as EvE's would eventually work out.

There are scifi backgrounds where either or even both exist, but Im not sure making Null into The Periphery (to use a Battletech reference) is as interesting a concept as allowing players to form the Successor States


Yeah I think it's hugely more fun to have frequent 100-300 v 100-300 sized fleet fights rather than very occasional 1500 v 1500 sized fleet fights.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2014-06-03 16:51:17 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


It works like I said: at the moment if you want to hold territory in 0.0, literally everyone on the map is your neighbour. If you nerf radically power projection then you have a situation where eg: mighty Coalition A based in Deklein can't go pick on smaller group B based in Catch without leaving their home infrastructure vulnerable. Sure, they can go do it, but they'll be risking a lot. Also, Smaller Group B is very unlikely to join in on a cross-map attack on Mighty Group A, so there is less incentive to subdue or eradicate them in the first place.

Therefore mighty coalition A will be inclined to look for more important targets who are closer to home so that they can get back and protect their home systems and CSAA yards in time and which are relevent to their interests.

Meanwhile, because smaller group B isn't faced with immediate threat from Mighty Coalition A (unless they go out of their way to provoke them) they aren't under as much pressure to join Mighty Coalition B out of sheer self defence.

Yes, smaller group B might have slightly increased logistics issues, but the trade-off is that they only need to supply themselves sufficiently to fight a war vs smaller group C in Immensea.

In short, a power projection nerf means that it's not as necessary - or even useful - to keep on expanding bloc sizes until there are literally only 2 megablocs left.

So the tl;dr is that a PP nerf would possibly allow smaller groups to exist at all. After all, it could hardly make there be any fewer.


Amen.

There's a reason we call what we have now a Cold War. It is, in many ways, very reminiscient of NATO/Soviet relations in the 50's - late 80's early 90's. Sure you'll have the odd kerflffle, and someone will rattle a saber or two, but in the end, nothing is really going to change because the two mega blocs cannot afford to dfirectly confront each other (and in the case of Eve, there's no real reason to do so in the first place).

But the issue is that there's no real place for a smaller entity to hop on the nullsec bandwagon and survive unless they are backed (at least tacitly) by, or a member of, one of the larger coalitions. Power projection nerfs would help combat that to some extent, enabling smaller entities to worry about threats of a more manageable size instead of having to worry about an entire coalition of 10,000 pilots. Or worse - two of them.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#89 - 2014-06-03 16:51:22 UTC
Doc Severide wrote:
I don't understand the complaint. If you can't take the systems from the owners of sov by force, you want what? For CCP to just take it away and give it to you? Thats's not how it works. It reminds me exactly of the real life whine of the poor and minimm wage earners. They DEMAND that the government "fix" somethig that really isn't broken and then start throwing around phrases like "re-distribution of wealth".
When the time comes that CCP arbitrarily takes what I have earned and gives it to beggers, thats the day I quit forever and biomass my characters. No chance of returning...

You have 3 choices:

1). Fight for it.

2). Live with it.

3). Quit.



I love these republiwonks that spout about free market and how perfectly it works for everyone if the less fortunate (read: those that weren't born rich) would just pick themselves up and do better!

In order to make money one must have money. The problem arises when so much wealth is concentrated in so few hands that it becomes impossible for people to improve their situation without becoming economic serfs.

If a person doesn't know how to improve one's self or have the capital to invest in education, exactly how do you expect them to ever improve?

Most people in Eve can't take sov by force unless they join another organization that already can. That isn't improving one's self, or building an empire. That is jumping on the bandwagon and becoming another F1 monkey, or at best an FC. The head positions are already filled.

Part of the fun of commanding legions of ships and conquering territory and enemies for glory and profit is doing it yourself from scratch. I don't think that's even possible anymore. If you don't believe me, try it. But I'd bet as soon as you start throwing around supers, you get some unwelcome attention and get blown back to serf-dom.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2014-06-03 16:55:39 UTC
@Malcanis:

What do you think the results would be if we left power projection at the current level but say tripled the number of systems in nullsec, spreading them in all directions. Would that adequately address power creep, by provifing the same net effect?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Ahost Gceo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2014-06-03 16:56:59 UTC
Every day is a good day when you can pop out of your sov-less wormhole home, fondle some renterbears in nullsec, and disappear off the map within minutes to take a nap and repeat later.

CCP ignore me please, I make too much sense.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#92 - 2014-06-03 16:58:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
Malcanis wrote:


Yeah I think it's hugely more fun to have frequent 100-300 v 100-300 sized fleet fights rather than very occasional 1500 v 1500 sized fleet fights.


Why wouldnt those small mini-states operate as a coalition?
Wouldnt they blob up anyway?

If there was a way to have nicely playable (non-TiDi) 1500 v 1500 ship fleet actions, wouldnt frequent large actions be more fun?

I mean, fleet actions bigger than a dozen are no fun to me, but again, I can see where people enjoy them, and Id consider it mebbe if it was in real time and I ahd a miachine that could do it

But thats not really the point.

Im sort of saying declaring war on the Amarr Empire would be even more fun

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#93 - 2014-06-03 16:59:13 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

Part of the fun of commanding legions of ships and conquering territory and enemies for glory and profit is doing it yourself from scratch. I don't think that's even possible anymore. If you don't believe me, try it. But I'd bet as soon as you start throwing around supers, you get some unwelcome attention and get blown back to serf-dom.


This is balancing act, and a tricky one at that.

Either small groups aren't viable, or the years of hard work of the established groups is worthless.

In order to really promote growth in nullsec, LIVING there must be viable. Not just fighting there while your incurison alt makes you money in highsec.

The "farms and fields" idea means that it must be not just possible, but viable to hold what you have, viable to build and manufacture.

So I would err on the side of stability. If you want to dig someone else out, you need to bring more firepower and have the willpower to see it through. Otherwise, yes, you can go take a hike.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#94 - 2014-06-03 17:02:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Jenn aSide wrote:


This does not take into account alts (which big alliances could help provide via outlays of isk for PLEX, something small groups cannot do) and even jump clones.

Big alliances would simply "pre-position" ships and alts/clones where they needed (npc null or low sec nearest the point of itnerest) and become even more entrenched than they are now.



Yes actually it does. If you count jump cloning as one form of projection then that means that the Mighty Groups have to keep a "pre-position" fleet cache in literally every system that they want to defend.

Alts... yeah sorry no I'm not buying it. Are you saying that the blocs could straight up maintain multiple extra accounts for all their members? No they couldn't. That's Dinsdale thinking.

Also they can't possibly be more entrenched than they are now (short of CCP deeming the CFC and N3 new Empire Factions with fiat permanent sov)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Prince Kobol
#95 - 2014-06-03 17:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Malcanis wrote:

It works like I said: at the moment if you want to hold territory in 0.0, literally everyone on the map is your neighbour. If you nerf radically power projection then you have a situation where eg: mighty Coalition A based in Deklein can't go pick on smaller group B based in Catch without leaving their home infrastructure vulnerable. Sure, they can go do it, but they'll be risking a lot. Also, Smaller Group B is very unlikely to join in on a cross-map attack on Mighty Group A, so there is less incentive to subdue or eradicate them in the first place.

Therefore mighty coalition A will be inclined to look for more important targets who are closer to home so that they can get back and protect their home systems and CSAA yards in time and which are relevent to their interests.

Meanwhile, because smaller group B isn't faced with immediate threat from Mighty Coalition A (unless they go out of their way to provoke them) they aren't under as much pressure to join Mighty Coalition B out of sheer self defence.

Yes, smaller group B might have slightly increased logistics issues, but the trade-off is that they only need to supply themselves sufficiently to fight a war vs smaller group C in Immensea.

In short, a power projection nerf means that it's not as necessary - or even useful - to keep on expanding bloc sizes until there are literally only 2 megablocs left.

So the tl;dr is that a PP nerf would possibly allow smaller groups to exist at all. After all, it could hardly make there be any fewer.


I really do not see this working simply for the fact that all the major entities have enough alts / Cyno pilots / Titans and Titan pilots to make up for any nerf to jump range.

Hell all that needs to happen is for each member in CFC, NC, PL etc to create one cyno alt (pretty sure that these entities could even give a plex to each member to do this) and place one if not 2 cyno alts in every system.

Then what.. you have basically given the major entities licence to go even more wild because they know they can attack but because power project is nerfed the likelihood of there home being attacked is now even less

Same goes if you increase the fuel costs.

Look I do believe that Power Project is an issue but the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in again. It is the same problem with Capitals.

If you nerf power project to such an extent that it causes major pain to the hurt the big powers then you have all but destroyed any chance for the smaller entities.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#96 - 2014-06-03 17:04:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Also they can't possibly be more entrenched than they are now (short of CCP deeming the CFC and N3 new Empire Factions with fiat permanent sov)


Thats what Im talking about

Do that.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Prince Kobol
#97 - 2014-06-03 17:06:42 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Also they can't possibly be more entrenched than they are now (short of CCP deeming the CFC and N3 new Empire Factions with fiat permanent sov)



Of course they can if they know that other entities can not attack them due to needing such a long logistical chain that they do not have the manpower /ships / isk to accomplish it.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2014-06-03 17:09:17 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Also they can't possibly be more entrenched than they are now (short of CCP deeming the CFC and N3 new Empire Factions with fiat permanent sov)



Of course they can if they know that other entities can not attack them due to needing such a long logistical chain that they do not have the manpower /ships / isk to accomplish it.

But what it does do is open them up to a two front war, which have, historically speaking been very hard to fight, but in Eve can be fought with relative ease. If they're all off chasing Small Entity A, Small Entity B can nibble off small chunks of space and vice versa until MegaSuperDuper Block A is reduced to a size it can actively defend. That's the point Malcanis is (I think) trying to make.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#99 - 2014-06-03 17:13:59 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Yes actually it does. If you count jump cloning as one form of projection then that means that the Mighty Groups have to keep a "pre-position" fleet cache in literally every system that they want to defend.


No, they'd only need caches in at most 6 to 12 low sec/npc null spots (supposing that "power projection" was nerfed by say 75%). that's nothing.

And then there are timers + the newish jump clone cool down skill. a fair sized coalation would easily be able to defend space on opposite sides of the map in a 24 hour period.

This doesn't even take into account death cloning, which would have to be nerfed into the ground for some kind of power projection nerf to even work.

This reminds me of a lot of 'nerf local' discussion where 2 main points are missed: people are crafty as hell and WILL find a way to overcome whatever road blocks you put in front of them and EVE is a complex thing for which there are no easy one off answers.

Quote:

Alts... yeah sorry no I'm not buying it. Are you saying that the blocs could straight up maintain multiple extra accounts for all their members? No they couldn't. That's Dinsdale thinking.


i maintain 4 accounts using nothing more than a Tengu....YOUR Tengu fit in fact lol in Stain, Delve and Curse. I do that now with no alliance subsidy. imagine the time i could then devote to pvp if i only had to null mission half as much because the alliance had an "alt reimbursement plan" like the ship replacement plan?

You're not thinking this one through brother.

Quote:

Also they can't possibly be more entrenched than they are now (short of CCP deeming the CFC and N3 new Empire Factions with fiat permanent sov)


They can be more entrenched even without CCP help. This time last year I was a Honeybadger......
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#100 - 2014-06-03 17:21:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

It works like I said: at the moment if you want to hold territory in 0.0, literally everyone on the map is your neighbour. If you nerf radically power projection then you have a situation where eg: mighty Coalition A based in Deklein can't go pick on smaller group B based in Catch without leaving their home infrastructure vulnerable. Sure, they can go do it, but they'll be risking a lot. Also, Smaller Group B is very unlikely to join in on a cross-map attack on Mighty Group A, so there is less incentive to subdue or eradicate them in the first place.

Therefore mighty coalition A will be inclined to look for more important targets who are closer to home so that they can get back and protect their home systems and CSAA yards in time and which are relevent to their interests.

Meanwhile, because smaller group B isn't faced with immediate threat from Mighty Coalition A (unless they go out of their way to provoke them) they aren't under as much pressure to join Mighty Coalition B out of sheer self defence.

Yes, smaller group B might have slightly increased logistics issues, but the trade-off is that they only need to supply themselves sufficiently to fight a war vs smaller group C in Immensea.

In short, a power projection nerf means that it's not as necessary - or even useful - to keep on expanding bloc sizes until there are literally only 2 megablocs left.

So the tl;dr is that a PP nerf would possibly allow smaller groups to exist at all. After all, it could hardly make there be any fewer.


I really do not see this working simply for the fact that all the major entities have enough alts / Cyno pilots / Titans and Titan pilots to make up for any nerf to jump range.

Hell all that needs to happen is for each member in CFC, NC, PL etc to create one cyno alt (pretty sure that these entities could even give a plex to each member to do this) and place one if not 2 cyno alts in every system.

Then what.. you have basically given the major entities licence to go even more wild because they know they can attack but because power project is nerfed the likelihood of there home being attacked is now even less

Same goes if you increase the fuel costs.

Look I do believe that Power Project is an issue but the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in again. It is the same problem with Capitals.

If you nerf power project to such an extent that it causes major pain to the hurt the big powers then you have all but destroyed any chance for the smaller entities.


Well said.

While trying to figure out ways to make power projection nerfs 'stick' I considered the idea of not letting SOV alliances cyno through npc held areas. The same way countries don't allow some other countries to fly over their air space. I know that If I had to go completely around Curse to get to Providence i'd just leave them guys alone lol.

But that doesn't solve the problem while being a nightmare to implement. I think the best course for CCP is more "small group' centric tools + revisting the ability to 'live' in null. There is little reason to fight for nuill space when you can get what you need by having yoru alliance jsut join faction warfare lol (like TEST) did.

That brings me back to something I've said about CCP, you can't develop null in a vaccuum (space jokes aside). As long as i can plex 4 accounts using a single Tengu in NPC null (or faction war space or now regular low sec or high sec incursions/sisters/thukker missions) who cares about SOV null income lol.