These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do smaller entities really deserve more empowerment?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#141 - 2014-09-23 15:56:37 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:


For me personally I find no enjoyment in what is basically a fixed fight.


The whole current Provi Bloc war with Hero is a complete farce. The pace and direction decided by NC and PL, who are content with farming amusing kill mails.


100% agree

Personally I am hoping that you guys get involved just to spoil everybodies day


I have no idea but who do you pick to ultimately support? One side is a dribbling mass of sperglords supported by new players with enthusiasm Alliance leaders only dream about. The other side are a bunch of dirty role players allied with RUS, who've categorically proven that incompetent as a word doesn't quite cover their level of ineptitude. Both sides are backed up by two alliances who are normally allies.

It's a cripple fight with a bored Klitschko brother in either corner. In between getting dribbled on and avoiding colostomy bags, we're going to side swiped by either of the biggest punchers in EVE. Not sure it's something to actually want to get involved with.
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#142 - 2014-09-23 15:58:29 UTC
My smaller entity is still pretty small, even when empowered :'(

Not today spaghetti.
Prince Kobol
#143 - 2014-09-23 15:58:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:


For me personally I find no enjoyment in what is basically a fixed fight.


The whole current Provi Bloc war with Hero is a complete farce. The pace and direction decided by NC and PL, who are content with farming amusing kill mails.


100% agree

Personally I am hoping that you guys get involved just to spoil everybodies day


I have no idea but who do you pick to ultimately support? One side is a dribbling mass of sperglords supported by new players with enthusiasm Alliance leaders only dream about. The other side are a bunch of dirty role players allied with RUS, who've categorically proven that incompetent as a word doesn't quite cover their level of ineptitude. Both sides are backed up by two alliances who are normally allies.

It's a cripple fight with a bored Klitschko brother in either corner. In between getting dribbled on and avoiding colostomy bags, we're going to side swiped by either of the biggest punchers in EVE. Not sure it's something to actually want to get involved with.



You pick neither side.. just bring along bombers, lots and lots of bombers, lots and lots and lots and lots of bombers and just indiscriminately kill everything and everyone.

At the very least it would the hell out of a few people Big smile
Zheng Hucel-Ge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2014-09-23 19:27:23 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
Pookoko wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
Pookoko wrote:
Opening post


Recent changes have made it easier for smaller groups to be smaller groups, but not to compete against larger groups - Which, please mind, have received the exact same 'buffs'.


This I agree and cannot think of ways to go around the issue. Anything that buffs a small group will buff bigger group too. I wish I had some genius idea to make things more interesting for both parties, but alas, I don't. :(


Removing local in nullsec would be a good start imho :)

When sovereignty mechanics switch to an activity based model instead of the passive one we have now it will become a lot easier for smaller entities to get their foot in the door. As far as empire goes they already have a lot of tools handy as they don't have to compete with supercaps there (mostly) :)


+1 for removing null local. I think this could do wonders for smaller groups in nullsec space. It would make scouting an actual important job that and fc with an alt couldn't handle so easily. This could also allow for smaller groups to slip by more unnoticed and get more content for themelves without being blobbed so easily. I love this idea.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#145 - 2014-09-23 20:48:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Zheng Hucel-Ge wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
Pookoko wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
Pookoko wrote:
Opening post


Recent changes have made it easier for smaller groups to be smaller groups, but not to compete against larger groups - Which, please mind, have received the exact same 'buffs'.


This I agree and cannot think of ways to go around the issue. Anything that buffs a small group will buff bigger group too. I wish I had some genius idea to make things more interesting for both parties, but alas, I don't. :(


Removing local in nullsec would be a good start imho :)

When sovereignty mechanics switch to an activity based model instead of the passive one we have now it will become a lot easier for smaller entities to get their foot in the door. As far as empire goes they already have a lot of tools handy as they don't have to compete with supercaps there (mostly) :)


+1 for removing null local. I think this could do wonders for smaller groups in nullsec space. It would make scouting an actual important job that and fc with an alt couldn't handle so easily. This could also allow for smaller groups to slip by more unnoticed and get more content for themelves without being blobbed so easily. I love this idea.


Someone has never head of Malcanis. Or his law.

Or the kinds of tools people could make with 5 minutes of thought (like what the goons have, browser based warning system for ratters lol.

Someone has also not heard of twitch TV streaming. Or simply sitting a cloaked alt on a pipe gate minimized but with the sound cranked up so you can hear gate activations.....
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#146 - 2014-09-23 20:56:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Or simply sitting a cloaked alt on a pipe gate minimized but with the sound cranked up so you can hear gate activations.....


If a gate fires and no one is around to see it, does it still make a sound? Shocked


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Zheng Hucel-Ge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2014-09-23 21:16:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Zheng Hucel-Ge
Prince Kobol wrote:
Reiisha wrote:


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.


The reason is very simple, you think we do not have a lot of people in null now, remove local and it will be a even worse.

Yes Sov Mechanics is very skewed towards the defender but removing local would not even anything up. It would actually increase the advantage to the defending force especially in systems where there is a station.

Think about for a second, unless you have a spy you will have no idea how many hostiles will be docked up, you are a lot less likely to commit to a fight when you have no idea if there is 10 people in local or 500.

Also people by their very nature are risk adverse, by removing local you are greatly increasing the risk but giving nothing back.

On top of this what about those people who who live null to run anoms, rat, run exploration sites etc but have nothing to do with Sov Warfare, you are also going to harm them.

You also seem to forget that one of the main reasons why guerilla style operations are not possible is because as soon as you shoot at a structure the opposing force is notified. Depending on what that structure is they can just forget about it or send a scout, either way local does not really play any part.

Reiisha wrote:
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).



As good as this might sound, in practice nothing will change. All you would have is even more renters.


The only issue you've mentioned about not knowing how many people are in local is very short sighted. That five hundred person group isn't going to be moving stations everyday. War is taking risks, it's not always knowing the amount of people you are up against, it's finding and collecting information. All of a sudden spies and Intel becomes even more valuable. Intelligence gathering other than looking at the local window means something. Sending a covert ops into a system with a station to scout at range to watch activity has meaning more than just saying they'd undocking. It brings forth one of the most underestimated importance's of war. Information. Imagine the Vietnam war if it were eve. +1000 nva in jungle. +5000 here. The US would have trounced the nva if the jungle simply announced their presence. The guerrilla fighters advantage is their ability to remain hidden until they strike. Not to have their presence announced all along the pipeline giving opposing forces plenty of time to form up. Even if there were 500 in local, they might not be able to form up in seconds or a couple of minutes to respond properly before the guerrillas take off. It would help enable small groups harassing bigger entities.

EDIT: my phone is ******** and likes to autocorrect
Zheng Hucel-Ge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2014-09-24 05:10:17 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Someone has never head of Malcanis. Or his law.

Or the kinds of tools people could make with 5 minutes of thought (like what the goons have, browser based warning system for ratters lol.

Someone has also not heard of twitch TV streaming. Or simply sitting a cloaked alt on a pipe gate minimized but with the sound cranked up so you can hear gate activations.....


Go ahead and cloak on a pipe gate. There's wormholes. Did you miss that release? They take you places.

Talk about someone who can't think and you can't even tear apart your own counter argument before you make it.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#149 - 2014-09-24 05:20:12 UTC
Zheng Hucel-Ge wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Someone has never head of Malcanis. Or his law.

Or the kinds of tools people could make with 5 minutes of thought (like what the goons have, browser based warning system for ratters lol.

Someone has also not heard of twitch TV streaming. Or simply sitting a cloaked alt on a pipe gate minimized but with the sound cranked up so you can hear gate activations.....


Go ahead and cloak on a pipe gate. There's wormholes. Did you miss that release? They take you places.

Talk about someone who can't think and you can't even tear apart your own counter argument before you make it.



Sigh.

You do know that wormholes show up on dscan as sigs right? you do know that the larger a group is, the more people who can leave scanning alts in tech1 scanning ships just lying around to sweep for such holes frequently, something the smaller group can't do nearly as well. And that guy or group popping in to a system from a wormhole won't know that there is a guy sitting on a gate cloaked up and streaming to twitch, but the cloaked guy WILL be able to tell when things start changing in system because someone is ratting or mining or whatever.

No local works in wormholes because of the rest of wormhole space's mechanics (no cynos, no gates, no dockable structures , mass limits to entrances etc). K space (including null) has none of that, no local in null would become EVEN MORe unfriendly to people who don't have 10,000 accounts worth of back up and resources.

But hey, don't let reason and experience stop your naive pie in the sky thinking, everyone else is doing it , why not you lol.
Prince Kobol
#150 - 2014-09-24 06:46:51 UTC
Zheng Hucel-Ge wrote:
War is taking risks, it's not always knowing the amount of people you are up against, it's finding and collecting information.


This statement here shows me that you have no idea.

People do everything they can to mitigate risks. I can't count how many times a potential fight has been blue balled or where we have stood down because of the potential of facing an overwhelming force.

If take into consideration power projection and TiDi it means that any fleet engaged in battle must keep a constant vigil, not just in nearby systems but throughout the entirety of EVE. FC's often carefully track their watch lists and use scouts in staging systems and midpoints to ensure that they have the ability to fight or, if they are facing overwhelming odds, to extract.

Removing local changes this. Barring an incredible amount of luck or committing a hell of a lot of guys to reconning , FC's would be blind to any incoming force.

All that would happen is FC's who already do as a much as they can to mitigate risk as they are very wary of an opposing fleet forming up and hot dropping them will now be much more likely to field smaller fleets of less value or simply not deploy.

On top of all of this you very sophisticated api tools being used by these entities, tools which have been developed over the years that smaller forces will not have access to.

The you have PvE.

All those PvE targets.. gone. The risk v reward is simply not worth it.

All those miners, ratters, explorers, people running anons, DED Sites.. all of them will go.


Reiisha
#151 - 2014-09-24 09:21:09 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:


All those miners, ratters, explorers, people running anons, DED Sites.. all of them will go.




Whahey, no more afk ratting by bots, way less 'easy isk' pumped into the system... Explorers will explore anyway, otherwise theyre not explorers.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Aakkonen
Yoyodyne Industries
#152 - 2014-09-24 09:51:54 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Or simply sitting a cloaked alt on a pipe gate minimized but with the sound cranked up so you can hear gate activations.....


If a gate fires and no one is around to see it, does it still make a sound? Shocked





Thats deep dude....

Bad Jokes since -09.... Fly Safe! o7
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#153 - 2014-09-24 12:21:43 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Or simply sitting a cloaked alt on a pipe gate minimized but with the sound cranked up so you can hear gate activations.....


If a gate fires and no one is around to see it, does it still make a sound? Shocked





Wait - there is no sound in space!

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#154 - 2014-09-24 12:29:39 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Or simply sitting a cloaked alt on a pipe gate minimized but with the sound cranked up so you can hear gate activations.....


If a gate fires and no one is around to see it, does it still make a sound? Shocked





Wait - there is no sound in space!

You get forum candy for that.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Priscilla Project
Doomheim
#155 - 2014-09-24 12:34:14 UTC
Fluidic space has sound too!

Hmmm..... fluids in space ..............
  • All incoming connection attempts are being blocked. If you want to speak to me you will find me either in Hek local, you can create a contract or make a thread about it in General Discussions. I will call you back. -
Dave Stark
#156 - 2014-09-24 12:38:02 UTC
Priscilla Project wrote:
Fluidic space has sound too!

Hmmm..... fluids in space ..............


in space, nobody can hear you rubbing one out.
Talvorian Dex
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#157 - 2014-09-24 13:40:43 UTC
Pookoko wrote:

However, sometimes I feel like some people feel way too entitled. Many people like seeing the underdog achieve something, but we should also appreciate the planning and effort that some players have put in to put themselves in the position of advantage in the first place, and the trade offs they had to make along the way.



I only quoted a bit, but your whole argument is certainly worth quoting/reading/considering. However, you need to keep in mind that game design decisions aren't based on what is fair or what justifies the work people put into achieving the min/max state. Yes, existing null-sec entities have put a lot of work in, spent a lot of RL money for out-of-game IT services, and put countless hours in. From that perspective, sure, they deserve to thrive.

But that perspective doesn't matter. Ultimately, what matters is the state of the game they create. The existing "more is better" tendency in null-sec in particular, and in PvP in general, does not create an environment that encourages deeper engagement. Null-sec is boring for a lot of people, a lot of groups have been pushed out, and the multiplicity and "wildness" that it's supposed to have (and used to have) is being replaced by a safer environment than low-sec.

For that reason alone, the blocs need to be broken up. CCP's interest is in doing what drives conflict and chaos in null-sec. Profitable chaos, yes, but chaos nonetheless. Null city-states provide a lot more content variety and opportunity for more people and types of people than null empires do. And that reason alone trumps all others in urging CCP to change the mechanics to encourage proliferation of smaller organizations.

Writer of Target Caller, an Eve Online PvP blog, at http://targetcaller.blogspot.com
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#158 - 2014-09-24 15:00:36 UTC
Talvorian Dex wrote:
Pookoko wrote:

However, sometimes I feel like some people feel way too entitled. Many people like seeing the underdog achieve something, but we should also appreciate the planning and effort that some players have put in to put themselves in the position of advantage in the first place, and the trade offs they had to make along the way.



I only quoted a bit, but your whole argument is certainly worth quoting/reading/considering. However, you need to keep in mind that game design decisions aren't based on what is fair or what justifies the work people put into achieving the min/max state. Yes, existing null-sec entities have put a lot of work in, spent a lot of RL money for out-of-game IT services, and put countless hours in. From that perspective, sure, they deserve to thrive.

But that perspective doesn't matter. Ultimately, what matters is the state of the game they create. The existing "more is better" tendency in null-sec in particular, and in PvP in general, does not create an environment that encourages deeper engagement. Null-sec is boring for a lot of people, a lot of groups have been pushed out, and the multiplicity and "wildness" that it's supposed to have (and used to have) is being replaced by a safer environment than low-sec.

For that reason alone, the blocs need to be broken up. CCP's interest is in doing what drives conflict and chaos in null-sec. Profitable chaos, yes, but chaos nonetheless. Null city-states provide a lot more content variety and opportunity for more people and types of people than null empires do. And that reason alone trumps all others in urging CCP to change the mechanics to encourage proliferation of smaller organizations.


You can't stop people from making friends. City states in the past survived due to alliances and eventually become empires themselves or were absorbed by other city states becoming empires. It's just the natural order of things.

I agree with some of your sentiments but you're only going to get the little guy into nullsec if you tie system usage to how easy it is to take or defend and then add mechanics in which causes alliances to contract naturally around smaller areas as there is more value in doing that. The first part is easy, the current Sov mechanics can be easily adjusted. The second is far harder.
Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
Valentius Corporation Alliance
#159 - 2014-09-24 16:02:19 UTC
there is a simple rule in all things:

The weak and the small should always suffer under the boot heel of the strong and the well organized... and crushed regularly to make sure they stay in place... anything else would be freedom and self-determination and that cannot be allowed, not even in game form... so I vote for oppression, disenfranchisement and a return to the surf/renter/pet systems of glory... and also in EVE I think it should be the same...
Trin Javidan
Caymen Labs
#160 - 2014-09-24 17:04:31 UTC
Torneach Structor wrote:
Darren Airtex wrote:
It is a soldiers right to complain. That right has never been questioned throughout history.
It is when the soldier stops complaining, that is when the greatest empires have died.

Dude, that's like, so *puff* deep, man.


Unfortualy for CCP, the avarage EVE player does have a good alternative other than protest strikes at rikjavik, and that simply is playing other games... Who does come back eventualy and not, doesnt really matter... it is a oppertunity loss to bind a customer to you product, and that customer sees the product in a negative way now. It will take twice the effort to fix that. Thus again a $$ loss.