These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Pre-CSM Summit Nullsec and Sov Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#461 - 2014-09-19 01:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Here's what you and your buds are missing. There are thousands of subscriptions leaving the game because listening to large power blocks made the game boring. Eve players aren't (on average) easily influenced little kids. They aren't dumb and they understand how the game got here. They don't want your help solving the problems you (the big you) created. They want the game to be fun and fresh again.

This whole thread, the deserted null, the bored played out one dimensional mess you've created.... it sux. Folks are talking about overhauling your crappy null power block system. They don't want your help or input, they understand quite frankly that you (the big you) put them in this boring place.

The next big step in fixing this mess and probably saving eve is for CCP to realize that you in charge guys getting boo boo hurt feelins and leaving the game is probably good. They need to realize that the leadership of the big power blocks quitting the game won't hurt the bottom line. They need to realize there a thousands (yeah that's thousands) of subscribing players that just want to play eve their way. Not your way - thier way.

Get rid of all cyno jamming (Remove 3 timer protection from the super cap ship yards)
Get rid of drone assist (this is one that no one will miss in 3 months)
Move moon goo around randomly (It's free isk if you got the blob at your back - nothing should be free)
Get rid of ISboxer (thousands of guys don't like watching one guy power farm/mining and generating huge piles of isk while they are trying to play the game. (Pro Hint: It's supposed to be a pvp game and ISboxer is a farming tool that rapes empire belts and auto docks in null - it's difficult for folks to trust a company that allows this type of play just because the accounts bring in money)

Make it difficult for a large group to fund a SRP. Make it hard for supercaps to be built.

Passive isk needs to go. Make so you have to actually play the game to go forward in it. It's a really good game CCP, have a little faith in it.
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#462 - 2014-09-19 01:49:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:


10 per system wouldn't be a limit, rather a target. Even at 10 active per system, that would reduce sprawl by 60-70% When my alliance at 4k chars was most active at peace, we had about 250-300 on, and a good number of those were pvping or afk. Say 200 were active, they would only need 20 systems, or half of Period Basis. Extrapolating, GSF would only need 60 systems, or 25% of what it currently controls. The other alliances, even less.

Have you considered the effect of 100k nulsec guys running missions on the LP market? It would collapse income for all sectors of EVE. Additionally, ships in missions have to be probed down, and then you usually have an acceleration gate. How many people want to end hunting ratters?


Most null players already run missions in high sec so the impact on LP will be minimal. Also your numbers are way off.

Our goal is to get our members out of high sec and into null to earn their isk so we would infact need to be able to support everyone in our organisation which means a minimum of 300 systems would be required. Your system also does not take into account population growth. If we continue to grow like we have done then in 4-5 years we will need 600 systems to support our memebers and we wind up with the exact same situation as now.

Missions solve these problems and allows us to contract our entire empire into just one region and will allow for population growth in the future.


300 systems required? With systems able to sustain 10 players per, that would imply that you would have 3000 players actively working to earn isk. Even with the size of the CFC, you may have 3000 players max online and not all of those are making isk, probably closer to half. At half actively earning isk in nullsec you would need about 150 systems, or 1500 active, isk earning pilots in space. 1500 ratters, with their juicy ratting ships, spread over just 3 regions. Or we could shove them all into a few mission running hubs where you have to probe them down, take a gate, and this all in a system with hundreds of hostiles and probably a cyno jammer. GG you just killed nulsec pvp.

Moreover, when you talk of our goal and our members, it thoroughly reinforces my suspicion that you aren't trying to make eve better, you're just trying to advance the needs of your "organization".

My solution is neutral. Give us a rich new space where the JBs and cynos of the existing powers can't reach. Where corps and disenfranchised alliances can make a go for themselves.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#463 - 2014-09-19 01:51:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Most null players already run missions in high sec so the impact on LP will be minimal. Also your numbers are way off.

Our goal is to get our members out of high sec and into null to earn their isk so we would infact need to be able to support everyone in our organisation which means a minimum of 300 systems would be required. Your system also does not take into account population growth. If we continue to grow like we have done then in 4-5 years we will need 600 systems to support our memebers and we wind up with the exact same situation as now.

Missions solve these problems and allows us to contract our entire empire into just one region and will allow for population growth in the future.



Your goal is to support your members? Hahahahahaha. Your goal (dare I say need) is to play your vision of the end game where you have thousands of pieces to move around the board at your whim. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked. If you had remembered it's a pvp game and kept the conflict going your minions would have stayed interested. But no you had to get all 'big government' and got in the business of providing for your members. You turned a great pvp game into rainbow unicorn happy theme park play land. More for the members and all.

I think this whole push is about you not being able to provide for your members. You just can't see it for yourself yet, but they don't want you providing for them. They want you to go away because you made the game boring.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#464 - 2014-09-19 02:23:35 UTC
Triget wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:


10 per system wouldn't be a limit, rather a target. Even at 10 active per system, that would reduce sprawl by 60-70% When my alliance at 4k chars was most active at peace, we had about 250-300 on, and a good number of those were pvping or afk. Say 200 were active, they would only need 20 systems, or half of Period Basis. Extrapolating, GSF would only need 60 systems, or 25% of what it currently controls. The other alliances, even less.

Have you considered the effect of 100k nulsec guys running missions on the LP market? It would collapse income for all sectors of EVE. Additionally, ships in missions have to be probed down, and then you usually have an acceleration gate. How many people want to end hunting ratters?


Most null players already run missions in high sec so the impact on LP will be minimal. Also your numbers are way off.

Our goal is to get our members out of high sec and into null to earn their isk so we would infact need to be able to support everyone in our organisation which means a minimum of 300 systems would be required. Your system also does not take into account population growth. If we continue to grow like we have done then in 4-5 years we will need 600 systems to support our memebers and we wind up with the exact same situation as now.

Missions solve these problems and allows us to contract our entire empire into just one region and will allow for population growth in the future.


300 systems required? With systems able to sustain 10 players per, that would imply that you would have 3000 players actively working to earn isk. Even with the size of the CFC, you may have 3000 players max online and not all of those are making isk, probably closer to half. At half actively earning isk in nullsec you would need about 150 systems, or 1500 active, isk earning pilots in space. 1500 ratters, with their juicy ratting ships, spread over just 3 regions. Or we could shove them all into a few mission running hubs where you have to probe them down, take a gate, and this all in a system with hundreds of hostiles and probably a cyno jammer. GG you just killed nulsec pvp.

Moreover, when you talk of our goal and our members, it thoroughly reinforces my suspicion that you aren't trying to make eve better, you're just trying to advance the needs of your "organization".

My solution is neutral. Give us a rich new space where the JBs and cynos of the existing powers can't reach. Where corps and disenfranchised alliances can make a go for themselves.


We had 3670 ships in the B-R battle. We had over 2000 people in the flight of a thousand megathrons and we still had hundreds of people ratting in our space. Our organisation has tens of thousands in it, yes we need that space if you limit us to 10 per system and as I said, your plan does not take into account population growth. Your plan will result in the exact same situation we have today.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#465 - 2014-09-19 02:26:43 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Most null players already run missions in high sec so the impact on LP will be minimal. Also your numbers are way off.

Our goal is to get our members out of high sec and into null to earn their isk so we would infact need to be able to support everyone in our organisation which means a minimum of 300 systems would be required. Your system also does not take into account population growth. If we continue to grow like we have done then in 4-5 years we will need 600 systems to support our memebers and we wind up with the exact same situation as now.

Missions solve these problems and allows us to contract our entire empire into just one region and will allow for population growth in the future.



Your goal is to support your members? Hahahahahaha. Your goal (dare I say need) is to play your vision of the end game where you have thousands of pieces to move around the board at your whim. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked. If you had remembered it's a pvp game and kept the conflict going your minions would have stayed interested. But no you had to get all 'big government' and got in the business of providing for your members. You turned a great pvp game into rainbow unicorn happy theme park play land. More for the members and all.

I think this whole push is about you not being able to provide for your members. You just can't see it for yourself yet, but they don't want you providing for them. They want you to go away because you made the game boring.


We are probably the biggest content makers in the entire game. It is not our fault the mechanics have forced the inevitable result of a cold war between two superpowers.
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#466 - 2014-09-19 02:54:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:


10 per system wouldn't be a limit, rather a target. Even at 10 active per system, that would reduce sprawl by 60-70% When my alliance at 4k chars was most active at peace, we had about 250-300 on, and a good number of those were pvping or afk. Say 200 were active, they would only need 20 systems, or half of Period Basis. Extrapolating, GSF would only need 60 systems, or 25% of what it currently controls. The other alliances, even less.

Have you considered the effect of 100k nulsec guys running missions on the LP market? It would collapse income for all sectors of EVE. Additionally, ships in missions have to be probed down, and then you usually have an acceleration gate. How many people want to end hunting ratters?


Most null players already run missions in high sec so the impact on LP will be minimal. Also your numbers are way off.

Our goal is to get our members out of high sec and into null to earn their isk so we would infact need to be able to support everyone in our organisation which means a minimum of 300 systems would be required. Your system also does not take into account population growth. If we continue to grow like we have done then in 4-5 years we will need 600 systems to support our memebers and we wind up with the exact same situation as now.

Missions solve these problems and allows us to contract our entire empire into just one region and will allow for population growth in the future.


300 systems required? With systems able to sustain 10 players per, that would imply that you would have 3000 players actively working to earn isk. Even with the size of the CFC, you may have 3000 players max online and not all of those are making isk, probably closer to half. At half actively earning isk in nullsec you would need about 150 systems, or 1500 active, isk earning pilots in space. 1500 ratters, with their juicy ratting ships, spread over just 3 regions. Or we could shove them all into a few mission running hubs where you have to probe them down, take a gate, and this all in a system with hundreds of hostiles and probably a cyno jammer. GG you just killed nulsec pvp.

Moreover, when you talk of our goal and our members, it thoroughly reinforces my suspicion that you aren't trying to make eve better, you're just trying to advance the needs of your "organization".

My solution is neutral. Give us a rich new space where the JBs and cynos of the existing powers can't reach. Where corps and disenfranchised alliances can make a go for themselves.


We had 3670 ships in the B-R battle. We had over 2000 people in the flight of a thousand megathrons and we still had hundreds of people ratting in our space. Our organisation has tens of thousands in it, yes we need that space if you limit us to 10 per system and as I said, your plan does not take into account population growth. Your plan will result in the exact same situation we have today.


Same situation in.... 7-8 years. Fine, if you don't want to work with real numbers, instead citing the two major content creations you did over the past year, just increase the capacity of systems. 20 pilots supported per system. Then, with a quarter of your current space you could have 4000 players concurrently on all ratting. I dispute the numbers, but using yours, that would work, plus you would spread out the ratters and give us nullsec pvp instead of trying to probe down ratters in gated complexes.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#467 - 2014-09-19 04:02:07 UTC
Triget wrote:


Same situation in.... 7-8 years. Fine, if you don't want to work with real numbers, instead citing the two major content creations you did over the past year, just increase the capacity of systems. 20 pilots supported per system. Then, with a quarter of your current space you could have 4000 players concurrently on all ratting. I dispute the numbers, but using yours, that would work, plus you would spread out the ratters and give us nullsec pvp instead of trying to probe down ratters in gated complexes.


But our way will fix it forever and free up a lot more space. We don't want a temporary fix.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#468 - 2014-09-19 04:50:01 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
baltec1 wrote:


But our way will "fix" it forever and free up a lot more space for renters. We don't want to fix force projection so we can keep our SRP and blue timbit.



fyp

edit: i used timbit cuss its a small doughnut. your space might be smaller but will still keep the rental space and have it grow in proportional size if force projection is not rained in.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#469 - 2014-09-19 05:01:22 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:


fyp

edit: i used timbit cuss its a small doughnut. your space might be smaller but will still keep the rental space and have it grow in proportional size if force projection is not rained in.


Its not projection you need to deal with its our fleets invincibility. It doesn't matter if we take 1 hour or 4 hours to get there what matters is what happens when we get there
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#470 - 2014-09-19 07:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Yun Kuai
Okay first question, how do you get that the average nullsec system can only sustain 10 people? What is your definition of sustain?
With mining, ratting, and site running I don't understand how you can only support 10 people/system. This is a "MMO" that is all about players interacting. Why can 20 guys not run the same anoms together? 20 guys running the same site = 20x faster = 20x more sites run in the same time as 1 player solo = no change in income...or am I missing something?In addition, how much isk do you really need when all your ships are free and replaced?

So these lvl 4 agents you're thinking of, how exactly is that going to work?

What kinds of agents will you get?

What faction/corporation will they represent?

How do you decide which agent/agent lvl goes into the station?

What happens with turning down missions? (remember you want nullsec to be 100% sustainable which means highsec shouldn't be issue; i.e. standings should matter right?)

Do they pay LP?

Will there be a LP store in your station?

How do you feel about 0 isk payout and only LP from agents?

What about hunting the new mission runners? (probes won't work)

How do you feel about making them spawn overview beacons like FW missions? (nullsec is supposed to be risky right?)

How do you feel about 0 gates and 0 "beacons that force you at 0" for every mission site? (^see above^)

Are these supposed to completely take over anom running?

How will this tie into ESS?

How do you feel about making missions only spawn in systems your alliance doesn't own (I know you can get around this by running missions in your sea of blue's stations/space)?



And finally you seem pretty confident that once these lvl 4s show up you guys will magically dorp 80% of your space overnight? What is stop you from continuing to hold onto them for the months between part 2 and 3 of the magic plan?
-My point is, you guys talk about wanting change when, as others have mentioned, these problems were made by the power blocs. It wasn't a forced mechanic by CCP to make the doughnut or continue to not allow smaller groups in; it was a choice to abuse said mechanic. You could easily have settled for 1 region and been done with it. So prove to me why anyone here should believe a single word that anything would be different.

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#471 - 2014-09-19 08:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Yun Kuai wrote:
Okay first question, how do you get that the average nullsec system can only sustain 10 people? What is your definition of sustain?
With mining, ratting, and site running I don't understand how you can only support 10 people/system. This is a "MMO" that is all about players interacting. Why can 20 guys not run the same anoms together? 20 guys running the same site = 20x faster = 20x more sites run in the same time as 1 player solo = no change in income...or am I missing something?In addition, how much isk do you really need when all your ships are free and replaced?

So these lvl 4 agents you're thinking of, how exactly is that going to work?

What kinds of agents will you get?

What faction/corporation will they represent?

How do you decide which agent/agent lvl goes into the station?

What happens with turning down missions? (remember you want nullsec to be 100% sustainable which means highsec shouldn't be issue; i.e. standings should matter right?)

Do they pay LP?

Will there be a LP store in your station?

How do you feel about 0 isk payout and only LP from agents?

What about hunting the new mission runners? (probes won't work)

How do you feel about making them spawn overview beacons like FW missions? (nullsec is supposed to be risky right?)

How do you feel about 0 gates and 0 "beacons that force you at 0" for every mission site? (^see above^)

Are these supposed to completely take over anom running?

How will this tie into ESS?

How do you feel about making missions only spawn in systems your alliance doesn't own (I know you can get around this by running missions in your sea of blue's stations/space)?



And finally you seem pretty confident that once these lvl 4s show up you guys will magically dorp 80% of your space overnight? What is stop you from continuing to hold onto them for the months between part 2 and 3 of the magic plan?
-My point is, you guys talk about wanting change when, as others have mentioned, these problems were made by the power blocs. It wasn't a forced mechanic by CCP to make the doughnut or continue to not allow smaller groups in; it was a choice to abuse said mechanic. You could easily have settled for 1 region and been done with it. So prove to me why anyone here should believe a single word that anything would be different.



Anoms have a finite spawn rate that only lets 10 run them per system.

Missions will work in the exact same way as any other mission. Im fine with no isk reward if highsec also loses it in missions. Missions in outposts will be based upon the station upgrade system, there will be 4 levels, at level one you get a level 1 agent, at level 2 you get a level 1 and 2 agent and so on. Standing will be gained for the agent just like normal. LP will be concord LP which can be used in any factions LP store but not in the pirate stores. If you do not run missions over time the mission upgrade will drop levels untill it reaches level 1.

Missions are just one part of the plan, their job is to make it possible to shrink empires greatly while hosting a large amount of people
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#472 - 2014-09-19 10:38:21 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Felix Judge wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Whatever the implementation may be, somethign is needed. A way that smallers fleets can cause damage or economic disruption on a sov held territory if they are not coutnered. There must be possible to hurt an alliance a bit without the need to bring 500 people.

That is necessary so that smaller fleets need to be coutnered, so MORE small scale combat happens.

Easy. Base sov on presence of military ships over a certain amount of time - short enough that takeovers dont take weeks, but but long enough that nul does not return to ping-pong games.
Yes, I have thought longer about this and posted a thread all of its own in the Features and Ideas forum... so look below if you are interested in the details. Oh, and please leave a comment there if you think it would not work for some reason.


Alliance X has 500 plaeyrs.
Alliance Y has 10 000 players.

Imagine: Taking a system takes 100 active combat pilots in the system for 24 hours being active. Alliance X can take one system per day and have to force people to play for almost 5 hours every single day to attack or defend space. Alliance Y can ask every pilot to be in space for an hour per day and still can assault or defend 4 systems.

No matter what you do to "prefer small gangs", larger numbers will always run over the small gangs either via attrition, financial superiority (shinier ships in larger numbers) or just by blobbing.

Remember, if a group of 5 can do X, a group of 50 can do potentially 10X.



That is nto the point. Nice how you like to ignore the main thing.


Issue is right now there is no pressure for the larger alliance to hunt and counter small gangs, because they cannto do any meaningful harm. So there is no reason to hunt those without own fast response forces . We need that small gangs force allainces to coutner them, so we have more small scale fights.

The harm does not need to be about cov. Can be simple as beign able to fast and easily disable jump bridges and moon mining.


And No your statement is not correct. When you need only 50 people to cause damage, a large alluiance with 10 K members and 60 systems fighting a small group with 5 systems and 200 members is NOT on the same advantage as they have now. As off the current system the smaller alliance would be IRRELEVANT to the larger one even if they had the most skilled players.

When there is no reason to bring huge fleets, then the small group can pick fights and be as annoying to the large alliance as the other way around if the large alliance keep acting as an unified blob that is 10 times larger than what is needed for that activity. . If the lager alliance spread in tons of smaller forces to leverage on their numbers superiority, then the superior skill of one group will matter.

Yes numbers will always give you advantage, but not invulnerability.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#473 - 2014-09-19 10:40:45 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Whatever the implementation may be, somethign is needed. A way that smallers fleets can cause damage or economic disruption on a sov held territory if they are not coutnered. There must be possible to hurt an alliance a bit without the need to bring 500 people.

That is necessary so that smaller fleets need to be coutnered, so MORE small scale combat happens.

you can do that now

you just don't, because it requires actual effort and commitment



No you cannot. Your excuse is bullshit and you know it. If commitment was all that mattered then some woudl be doing.

We roam YOUR space and other groups space from time to time and almost never anyone comes trying to stop us, because a group of 15 shisp cannot do ANY damage that would force the sov holders to even log in and leave their mumble.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#474 - 2014-09-19 10:44:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:


And just ignore that part of fixing this mess means the only way to hurt someone shouldn't revolve around a static object with 2 day timers.

Your circular logic gains you zero points. You just run around the same track of self-reinforcing talking points. What are you, an evangalist?


You still have not explained how anyone would be able to do anything to our fleets other than die horribly. Also POS timers are not up for being changed.



They do nto need to be changed. But if you give more TACTICAL targets that are easy to knock you can have an improvment.

Simple examples? On the current system, disregardign the proposed changes for a second... Reduce jump bridges EHP by a lot so that a small roamign gang can disable them if they are not hunted and disrupted for too long. Move moon mining modules to outside POS shield... for the exact same effect.

At leas this way, small forces coudl force the larger groups to fight them. And that measn to undock and hunt them IMMEDIATELy and not wait to form a 500 people fleet with supers on standby.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#475 - 2014-09-19 11:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
Angelique Duchemin wrote:


...

As for timers. They are required or people would have no incentive to have expensive structures in space if they could wake up in the morning and find that a fleet of ninja Dreadnoughts had blown up their capital construction tower during the night.


Cant really agree on that one - without timers alliances would be back to what they originally where: Organisations that had to cover the 24/7 period to avoid losing their assets. A corp alone has a hard time to achieve that - thats why there are alliance levels.

Timers are a convenience and make Eve just a 'normal' MMO again. Without them it would be back to original spirit of being a harsh environment that requires organisation and wit - and not just numbers.

Post 461 says it all - there are many many players who would like to play - but on fair grounds. Just try to remember why everyone joined up against BoB in old times - because everyone was sick of single powerhouses and their 'pets'. Look at what you have created by now - a universe of powerhouses and 'pets' that own more sov than yourself.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#476 - 2014-09-19 11:27:02 UTC
[quote=baltec1 We are probably the biggest content makers in the entire game. It is not our fault the mechanics have forced the inevitable result of a cold war between two superpowers. [/quote]


You are the biggest alliance in null sec where there is little content. So as the biggest content makeer you have failed miserably. Folks are bored and tired of being spoon fed your brand of null. They are speaking out and it looks like the intent is to disassemble boring and bring back actual fun.

It's interesting that you say you are the big dog and in control in one breath and then say it's not your fault in the next. I would wager it's this kind of double speak the the average spaceman spiff is tired of hearing. You can only promise fun so many times without delivering. It looks like you overlord types have handed out one to many empty promises.

I think the bottom line here is folks want to log in and have fun. Logging in to serve to large and (key word here) BORING entities who are mostly afk playing other games isn't fun. I think you're at the point where the faith is broken between the big yous and the little us.

You can't even trump up a faux conflict to get the masses back in line. You only have a couple of combat cards in your deck. They all pretty much suck for most of the players. Supers online is pretty lame for most folks. Even the super pilots think it's boring. The winning is pretty sweet, but the journey to the win is boring. Then there is 'Extra Laggy Archon I Logged in First' combat. Again, winning feels good, but the 9+ hours of 'THIS ISN"T FUN AT ALL' to get there.... well isn't fun at all.

Yeah, I know - none of this is your fault. It's all bad game mechanics right? Well captain the ship is going down. I'm not going to blame the mess cooks for this one.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#477 - 2014-09-19 11:47:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:


Same situation in.... 7-8 years. Fine, if you don't want to work with real numbers, instead citing the two major content creations you did over the past year, just increase the capacity of systems. 20 pilots supported per system. Then, with a quarter of your current space you could have 4000 players concurrently on all ratting. I dispute the numbers, but using yours, that would work, plus you would spread out the ratters and give us nullsec pvp instead of trying to probe down ratters in gated complexes.


But our way will fix it forever and free up a lot more space. We don't want a temporary fix.



So your way.... your changes will fix... (blah blah blah).


And then on the same page of this thread you say "It's not our fault, it's bad game mechanics"


So... should I go prompt stupid and forget that all YOUR PRIOR FIXES are the bad game mechanics you aren't responsible for?

You should probably at least enlist 2 different characters to do you double speak. One discussing how bad mechanics aren't your fault and a different one promoting your newest set of bad mechanics (that won't be your fault 1 yr down the road)

. Of course you'd both have to fly the swarm flag to give credility to your arguements, which would allow the most casual of readers to make the connection. Hmmm you are in a bit of a tough spot here.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#478 - 2014-09-19 13:43:51 UTC
Soo, judging by the angst going on here, goons are once again the reason why N3/PL hold way more space than goons and goons need to be smacked while others are fine and dandy at continuing on their merry ways?
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#479 - 2014-09-19 15:22:30 UTC
I'm only using goons because he's the one posting the crappy overlord endorsed fixes.

I have no idea which overlord pressured for each individual change that brought us here. Heck, I've liked the goons and their antics since my born on date.

TBH I don't even know the guy and am quite indifferent to him personally.

One thing about goons is they have always had a pretty healthy propoganda machine in the eve meta game. They are coming up short this time. I think the truth of the matter (null sec rainbow unicorn happy theme park renter land is boring) is just a bit too large to cover over at this point. Something inspirational about not being able to kill an idea should probably go here, but it's 3rd snack time at work, so....
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#480 - 2014-09-19 15:29:39 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

No you cannot. Your excuse is bullshit and you know it. If commitment was all that mattered then some woudl be doing.

We roam YOUR space and other groups space from time to time and almost never anyone comes trying to stop us, because a group of 15 shisp cannot do ANY damage that would force the sov holders to even log in and leave their mumble.

yes you can

we just then crush you like moa is now learning as they're camped out of their home

what you are actually whining like a little girl for is a way to win despite us responding, basically begging the devs to win your fights for you