EVE General Discussion

Very well said. The number of empty nullsec systems are just that. Empty space with a flag.

When we talk about small forces vs big forces we would think that the samll force has little and the larger force has mutch. Which would be perfectly fine. Small group should always have less then big groups.

But in current nullsec we have the samller force has nothing and the bigger force has it all.

If we look at why the large alliances are controlling so mutch space :

1) Controlling more space makes you ritcher without more effort (Moon mining)
2) Controlling more space does not make it more difficult to defend through long range power projection.
3) Sov is decided only in a small number of Timer fights that make it hard for a smaller force to win/hold even a single system.

A system should lose the sov if nobody of the sov holders actively does something in the system.
Gues this would probably cause mass riots of the large alliances if they were reduced to the number of systems they are actively using instead of the number of systems within their power projection range.

And if you watched the RnK vid you'd notice that even they are admitting it is allmost impossible these days to do anything as the 'small guy' . I allways loved the RnK vids , however this one gave me a sad face as it looked more like a 'goodbey note' then just another awsome vid of them.

Most, if not all the arguments i've seen that argue removing local would be bad are along the lines of 'but we are used to the current meta and we are too lazy to adapt'.

Removing local would mean that guerilla style operations actually become possible. In order to respond a proper recon force has to be present. The lack of local is just as much a tool for attackers as it is a disadvantage for the defenders, but it can be flipped around just as easily. The way it stands now the defender's advantage is far, far too big.

Remind me what reasons there were for not removing local again? I can't really think of any outside of reasons for convenience, or an unwillingness to adapt to an entirely new metagame, both of which aren't reasons at all but statements of laziness and stubborness.

As for activity based systems: I don't have to provide an exact proposal to make the point that passive systems are bad.

Currently sovereignty for example relies on timers. When a structure is reinforced it encourages both parties to log off. This in it's own is already bad, but adding to this that it makes territory control disproportionally easier the larger the group gets is insane. It's the entire reason why we have supercoalitions which basically never wage any meaningful war.

Another example of how passive systems are bad is PI. It's a 5 minute a day affair, which then encourages you to log off and wait for the customs office to fill up.

An activity based system, if done well, rewards activity (if that wasn't clear) rather than inactivity. This is especially important for sovereignty as it encourages less blue ribbons and smaller territories as larger territories become too difficult to maintain. Even if coalitions are formed, since more people are needed to hold on to an area it automatically results in more wars (more factions = more friction).

+1000

As is always the case, people think they know what they want, and they ask for it, plead for it, demand it. Then they get it. Then they realize that what they wanted was shite in the 1st place. Then they leave in search of the original situation (the one they didn't like in the 1st place) and they are happy for 5 minutes then the next thing you know they are right back in the pattern of "you know, this situation could be better if" lol.

I know confused people like that in real life, they are just as annoying there as they are here.

It's because it's more human to say "I figured it out, it's this one thing, fix that and everything is fine" than it is to say "this is a complex issue, I have some ideas but for the most part, I just don't know".

It was the same pre-Dominion. People were CELEBRATING Dominion, the end of the POS grind, how "SMALL ENTITIES" now have "objectives" (because an IHUB is a small gang objective lol) and thus the 'big power blocks' will not be able to hold everything etc etc.

Same thing now, only now it's "power projection" and still the same old "omg so much HP to grind locks out smaller groups" and "if you just make it activity based other groups can come in".

It will always be something along those lines just because of how people are and how people think.

Goons : Come and rent a system from us, now only 2 billion

N3 : come and rent a system from us, now only 1 billion

Goons : Come and rent a system from us. Now for free.

N3 : We will give you 1 Bill if you rent and hold sov for us

...

I respectfully disagree with the sentiment that nullsec would be less populated without local - Wormholes seem to be doing just fine without it, exactly because there is no local and no sov force to keep them out.

I firmly believe that the reason people don't go to null right now is because they are basically being kept out. Gatecamps at most entrances at most times of the day, as well as there being no reason to go there in the first place unless you *want* to get involved with the dreary daily life of sovereignty. Even as a renter you are subject to this, even if you don't participate in the wars themselves.

Removing local is only a first step - However i do think you miss the point of guerilla tactics. It's not to take down structures, but to run surprise raids on everything else that's going on, to disrupt the enemy's activities, not to conquer them, at least not via brute force.

With no local, guerilla style warfare actually becomes viable since people won't be logging off / docking up as soon as a hostile force appears in the system, making it actually possible to get in some kills and disrupt activities with material rewards, as opposed to just playing docking games. Enemy reactions will be slowed to a crawl since they can't pinpoint the whereabouts of your full fleet at any given moment as they can right now.

You may also not notice the new opportunities this gives - Small pirate and merc groups become insanely viable all of a sudden for example, as do black ops (!!!!!!!). Subcap small gang fights will become a lot more common when you can't just have one fleet instantly responds to every single incursion in their space. Smuggling stuff will also be a lot more fun!

People will try and go into null exactly because the large coalitions can't hold them at gate anymore. In order to defend your space you actually have to know that people are there, so it also becomes far less viable to claim empty systems.

Of course, a removal of local in nullsec would also go well hand in hand with a sov system that rewards activity.

Renters won't see the point in paying rent if the one they are renting from can't effectively defend that much space anymore. If you can't count on local to see how large the cap fleet of the opponent is you will likely be more risk averse as well.

You also cite that the attacker may not know there's 500 people in a station - Those 500 people in that station may also not know that there's 1000 man fleet waiting to jump in either. It creates a far more interesting dynamic than the static system we have now.

Maybe CCP should shut down local for a month and see where it all ends up, disguise it as a lore event :)

SQUATTING!!!!

With regards to the whole local thing, yeah, the game gives far too much free intelligence.

Having a system that allows alliances to improve their own space to provide intelligence for themselves while also allowing for other entities to disrupt said intelligence network would be rather interesting and dynamic.

I've been bouncing some ideas in my head about a full-blown intelligence network overhaul, but it would probably get locked in F&I because it has something to do with local and thus would be redundant.

What would prevent a large corp from employing an army of scroungers to effectively bypass SOV?