Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I think part of what Manny is getting at, and he can comment if I'm wrong, is that part of his goal is to make current logistics alot less important. That is instead of making a Jita run to buy 500 cruiser hulls and move them out to null, you'd source those cruiser hulls out in null itself. Now logistics would entail moving the hulls from your production yards to where you need them, which in theory could be shorter distance. Maybe.

Note in Manny's initial set of posts he talks about mining ops in null. This has two benefits:

1. Logistics in its current form could change and be reduced dramatically.
2. These guys out running around in mining ships, freighters, industrials and so forth make for juicy targets.

The latter will hopefully draw in hostile gangs, which in turn would provide an opportunity for a defense fleet. In other words, more opportunity for small to medium sized engagements.

Right now the current state of war is that you often have to out bore the other side. Why? Because it is nearly impossible to disrupt current logistics/supply processes. With neutral alts, jumping station-to-staion, this is the only option. You could try hitting their money moons and renters, but that is often just slightly less boring.

However, if null sec alliances have to actually use their space much more than they currently do, then you could cause lots of problems for an alliance/coalition simply by roaming through their space. If they don't form up and try to defend their space, the people who use the space to produce hulls, keep the JB systems running, keep the various POSes running, and even other money making ventures will be shut down. Keep that up long enough and things could go really badly for that alliance/coalition.

Currently though, if a hostile gang comes into your space turtling up and waiting for them to leave (of boredom) is a pretty decent strategy. Yeah, you can't rat all that much, but if they hang around long enough jump clone to empire and run missions (yeah it sucks, but hey at least the isk still flows to some extent). Sure they could hit a POS or three, but with the current mechanics you have time to call on allies and schedule an OP to defend/repair the POS. There is very little downside to turtling up. This makes for very boring game play.

I just want to say that i am in favor of killing CFC, NCPL and all of their pet alliances.
I just don't think that game mechanics should be the ones to do it.

However i also believe that CFC, NCPL and all the pets are not using the space they own in a way that is conducive to an expanding EVE.
I think that these entities own sov in places they do not occupy, rent or otherwise use.
Any sort of usage based sov would kill large swaths of sov from many sov owners in null, and thats something that i think is needed.
I haven't seen any arguments as to why CFC and the other alliances should continue in their current forms, the two coalition Null being the main issue of the thread no? Wouldnt 10k players in an alliance be able to support themselves and nominally the space they actually want to use? or am i missing something about how many people in that 10k actually want to play in nullsec?

Im not sure how to counter the force projection issues that are in evidence. Reducing jump ranges doesn't fix anything that i can see, it only hurts smaller entities trying to gain a foot hold. while larger groups will simply take strategic locations for the burden of additional jumps.

Even if the smaller alliances that i would liek to see in null become coalitions or are simply extensions of the existing coalitions, adding usages and distance from centers would make owning sov a thing that had to be worked at and induce more raiding and fleets in null. having to be marginaly active within your own space would go a long way to getting people to log in and find pvp activity. If i know that a system has to have activity to remain sov, there's a much greater chance that im going to find a fight there.

On the other side of this issue is the complete lack of ability to secure space in any way, cloaked Cyno ships are the bane of null miners, I dont think there has been a month without a nerf cloaks thread since the introduction of cloaks into the game. This too i am not sure how to fix. I suggest that cov ops cloaks and regular cynos be mutually exclusive, this does not stop covert cynos from cov ops ships, nor does this stop someone from using a mobile depot to swap a covert travel cloak to a standard cloak and cyno once in the target system, this just changes the mechanics of hot dropping someone. This does not make a system secure, nor does it keep drops from happening.

It is adorable, seeing all the attempts to artificially limit the size of an organization.

I dunno -- I have quite a bit of fun being in a large organization. I have opportunities that are unmatched in smaller-scale play. For instance, I probably would not have been a part of this if I had not been part of the organizations to which I belong.

Also, have you considered that it isn't CCP's job to split up large organizations? It may very well be that it is the obligation of the players who play the game to do that job. Certainly, organized subversion from within is going to be a lot more effective than any hamfisted external attempt to limit player organization size.

I have not seen anyone with well-thought out ideas - even ones I disagree with entirely - need to resort to things like the above. I have, however, seen people with poorly thought out ideas resort to the above when a hole is poked in their idea.

If you want to be able to discuss a subject like this you need to be able to realize when someone else is right and you need to come up with a new idea. You keep arguing that your ideas are the only workable ones besides the status quo. They're not, and they're not very good ideas. They have gigantic problems that people keep pointing out and you simply petulantly say that those people must be bad people. Even if that's true, guess what: we're in this game, and we will continue to be bad people and just evade your change in the exact way we tell you we're going to do so. If we tell you that your idea is trivial to evade and people will see an advantage in doing so, then that means if it was implemented we would trivially evade it and stomp the crap out of anyone silly enough to not evade it. Anytime your idea relies on us playing poorly it will not work.

Smell that? It's the bookmarks table catching fire.

Sorry i cannot resist.. People will make a bookmark 100km behind gate and warp to 100 ;)


Only way to have a non warp to zero would be making ALL warps imprecise by around 10 km.

You, too, are adorable.

Bump for CCP, just to refresh visibility of this topic.

Deconstructing a single idea due to its poor design is not the same thing as "defendign the status quo." I am not rejecting any changes to the status quo out of hand; merely attempting to cinch off an obviously faulty line of thinking before it gains traction and infects others.