These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Speed and Agility on the Macroscopic Scale
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#61 - 2014-06-14 22:03:45 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Will nerfing power projection achieve that? No, not in isolation. But I strongly suspect it is part of the solution.

The solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I see. I'll bow out now because I've been re-educated. I'm sure you prefer this version: All is well and good in sov null. Of course renting isn't a problem. Non-aggression pacts between major powers is a good thing for the future of the game. Major entities should have to swallow half the map to stay relevant.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#62 - 2014-06-14 22:04:40 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
most of null being worthless truesec.

So, remove truesec, set everything to worst truesec levels and add sov improvements to specialize your system on one aspect for higher effective truesec. Choices and consequences, just like ship fittings, only with systems.


And a barrier to entry that makes owning a titan look like paying credit for a toaster. Seriously, do you know how much those effing systems cost to upgrade?

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#63 - 2014-06-14 22:05:36 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Non-aggression pacts between major powers is a good thing for the future of the game.


I fail to see how CCP can interfere with the metagame like that, short of banning the people who signed it for no real reason.

"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.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#64 - 2014-06-14 22:07:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
most of null being worthless truesec.

So, remove truesec, set everything to worst truesec levels and add sov improvements to specialize your system on one aspect for higher effective truesec. Choices and consequences, just like ship fittings, only with systems.


And a barrier to entry that makes owning a titan look like paying credit for a toaster. Seriously, do you know how much those effing systems cost to upgrade?

That would be a matter for a new sov and upgrade system. I already said null-sec is a complicated matter that is done with a single change.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#65 - 2014-06-14 22:09:13 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
most of null being worthless truesec.

So, remove truesec, set everything to worst truesec levels and add sov improvements to specialize your system on one aspect for higher effective truesec. Choices and consequences, just like ship fittings, only with systems.


And a barrier to entry that makes owning a titan look like paying credit for a toaster. Seriously, do you know how much those effing systems cost to upgrade?

That would be a matter for a new sov and upgrade system. I already said null-sec is a complicated matter that is done with a single change.


So you're basically saying that there is no one thing that's the problem, and that sov needs a full rework?

Glad we agree. Because that's what I've been saying too. I find it very myopic of people who try and blame just one thing for the problem. Especially when the problem boils down to some people having more friends than some others.

"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.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#66 - 2014-06-14 22:10:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Non-aggression pacts between major powers is a good thing for the future of the game.


I fail to see how CCP can interfere with the metagame like that, short of banning the people who signed it for no real reason.

Of course the can. The current meta is a response to game mechanics. The new meta would be a response to game mechanic changes. Or do you think CCP already got everything right?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#67 - 2014-06-14 22:11:46 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Non-aggression pacts between major powers is a good thing for the future of the game.


I fail to see how CCP can interfere with the metagame like that, short of banning the people who signed it for no real reason.

Of course the can. The current meta is a response to game mechanics. The new meta would be a response to game mechanic changes. Or do you think CCP already got everything right?


I don't think CCP can stop two groups of people who decide not to shoot each other.

"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.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2014-06-14 22:17:02 UTC
Zappity wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Will nerfing power projection achieve that? No, not in isolation. But I strongly suspect it is part of the solution.

The solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I see. I'll bow out now because I've been re-educated. I'm sure you prefer this version: All is well and good in sov null. Of course renting isn't a problem. Non-aggression pacts between major powers is a good thing for the future of the game. Major entities should have to swallow half the map to stay relevant.

Your false dichotomy is illuminating indeed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#69 - 2014-06-14 22:20:44 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Non-aggression pacts between major powers is a good thing for the future of the game.


I fail to see how CCP can interfere with the metagame like that, short of banning the people who signed it for no real reason.

Of course the can. The current meta is a response to game mechanics. The new meta would be a response to game mechanic changes. Or do you think CCP already got everything right?


I don't think CCP can stop two groups of people who decide not to shoot each other.

They could motivate them to start shooting each other when it's more fun than not to. Structure grind is not fun. Fighting in TiDi is not fun.

My proposition is to add many small targets for people to fight over in small to medium fleets in many different systems. If those targets are worth attacking and worth defending fights will happen over them and alliances need to condense the controlled systems to the amount they could defend effectively. This would also provide an access point for incursions of fleets from higher security into sov null for fights and the gains from the small targets.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#70 - 2014-06-14 22:20:52 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zappity wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Will nerfing power projection achieve that? No, not in isolation. But I strongly suspect it is part of the solution.

The solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I see. I'll bow out now because I've been re-educated. I'm sure you prefer this version: All is well and good in sov null. Of course renting isn't a problem. Non-aggression pacts between major powers is a good thing for the future of the game. Major entities should have to swallow half the map to stay relevant.

Your false dichotomy is illuminating indeed.

It is hardly a false dichotomy when it is a response to your clear statement that the aforementioned issues are not problems. You would have to more clearly state your reasoning if you want a less facetious response.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
NoThisIsntItAtAll MakeIt MorePSSSHHHH
Doomheim
#71 - 2014-06-14 22:23:02 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Will nerfing power projection achieve that? No, not in isolation. But I strongly suspect it is part of the solution.

The solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Really?

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Northern_Associates.
Marc Durant
#72 - 2014-06-14 22:26:10 UTC
As I stated earlier; I would like to thank Ramona for making this thread super active, so obviously not what he intended.

James, you can't in all honesty stick to that view (well in public you do of course) because it makes no sense.

Yes, yes I am. Thanks for noticing.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#73 - 2014-06-14 22:52:16 UTC
Marc Durant wrote:
As I stated earlier; I would like to thank Ramona for making this thread super active, so obviously not what he intended.


You are gender confused. Ramona is a female name, as is suitable for a female pilot.

And by asking you a question that you chose to avoid answering, that is evidence in your mind I was attempting to have the thread closed?

Are you actually on crack?

"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
Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#74 - 2014-06-14 23:00:24 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Klatu Satori wrote:


Again, the point is not to dissolve player empires, but to balance ship speeds. If done right, that may mean that a thousand man alliance is only able to hold 100 systems instead of 1000. The one thousand man alliance would not necessarily break up, you said that yourself.


And what's stopping that 1000 man alliance from making alts?

If you introduce some block against a 1000 man alliance holding 1000 systems, you just gave that alliance a reason to BLUE MORE PEOPLE to hold that 1000 systems. As in real life it is in game: people don't fight over things they can buy with money or gain access to with diplomacy.



The point is to bring capital ship ranges more in line with the rest of the ships in the game, not block any particular alliance type. An obvious (positive) consequence is making it more difficult to cross the entire map.

Control-based Sovereignty System
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2014-06-14 23:07:47 UTC
Marc Durant wrote:
James, you can't in all honesty stick to that view (well in public you do of course) because it makes no sense.

I honestly think that power projection isn't a problem, yes. If you nerf it, you'll make it more difficult to live out here, and the response many people will have is to just stop living out here.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#76 - 2014-06-14 23:12:39 UTC
A super may be 1000 bigger than a cruiser

But it has an engine core 10,000 bigger.

Strategic movement is to a different scale to tactical movement

This is fairly constant in Scifi

Enterprise is faster in warp than a shuttle

The Deathstar is faster in hyperspace than the Millenium Falcon

Mya is faster than John's ship

Why would aliens fly around in gigantic motherships all the time if their small craft jumped faster?

A Super is used to project strategic might of an empire

It simply makes no sense for it to go slower than cruiser except at sublight speed.

"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
Klatu Satori
Shadows of the Black
#77 - 2014-06-14 23:17:52 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marc Durant wrote:
James, you can't in all honesty stick to that view (well in public you do of course) because it makes no sense.

I honestly think that power projection isn't a problem, yes. If you nerf it, you'll make it more difficult to live out here, and the response many people will have is to just stop living out here.


In one thread you have gone from saying that a jump drive nerf would have no effect large alliances to saying that everyone would just leave null sec. Neither is true. Some will adapt, others will not, some will leave, others will move in, as with every major change.

Control-based Sovereignty System
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#78 - 2014-06-14 23:20:09 UTC
Also, if you are having forum posting problems, try hitting the Draft link if it appears.

It has saved several posts so far

"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
Marc Durant
#79 - 2014-06-14 23:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Marc Durant
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marc Durant wrote:
James, you can't in all honesty stick to that view (well in public you do of course) because it makes no sense.

I honestly think that power projection isn't a problem, yes. If you nerf it, you'll make it more difficult to live out here, and the response many people will have is to just stop living out here.


You'll get less carebears, that's for sure. But you wouldn't get less people, after a while a new equilibrium would exist; more smaller entities, less boring super blobs, more activity, more small scale endeavours. More people to shoot at while not having to revert to cap blobbing (so much).

Yes, yes I am. Thanks for noticing.
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#80 - 2014-06-14 23:49:13 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
[...]

My proposition is to add many small targets for people to fight over in small to medium fleets in many different systems. If those targets are worth attacking and worth defending fights will happen over them and alliances need to condense the controlled systems to the amount they could defend effectively. This would also provide an access point for incursions of fleets from higher security into sov null for fights and the gains from the small targets.


Hm.
If those small targets all have to be successfully attacked at around the same time for the attackers to be successful, then the defenders just have to put their whole defense on one of those targets, and they'll have a huge advantage.
If it's okay to attack them one at a time, we still have the same situation as now.

I personally like the idea of having more distributed sites with simultaneous fights to conquer stuff, but please explain to me how to solve this.

And @OP:
I suppose part of the answer is, that reducing the balancing to "it's bigger, so it should travel slower" doesn't take the whole picture into account. I don't know much, if anything, about jump drives and how to fly capital ships, but it seems like a simplification to me.