These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2014-09-24 18:01:46 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
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.

Nope, they will just move to Highsec and run L4s and pump even more ISK into the system even easier, and with more safety, than when in nullsec without local.

Congratulations on turning nulsec into an absolute wasteland, by removing local.

Listen, no local works in W space because you can control the entrances and exits to your space. Have neighbors in the next hole, just collapse that hole and you don't have to worry about them stopping by for tea and mayhem, also you have nothing to worry about from hotdrops, or suddenly supercaps. No local works in W space, it won't work in null. It will quickly devolve into the only people in null are there to bash/defend some structure, and that is it. Nobody with any brains is going to rat or mine without an intelligence tool like local. We will simply make our isk in Highsec running level 4 missions, and the "small roaming gangs" will have no targets, and will themselves start to run level fours themselves, or probe out mission runners to gank in Highsec.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Pookoko
Sigma Sagittarii Inc.
#162 - 2014-09-25 00:19:35 UTC
As I said in one of my earlier post, null sec power mechanic wasn't something I had vast experience in. I certainly learned a lot from the discussions on null sec here, and while I still do think that bigger entities who've worked hard to get there should be rewarded and hold advantage accordingly, just for the purpose of making the game more 'fun' some form of conflict driver would be good.

It just seems though that giving whatever advantages to smaller entities may not be the complete problem solver. Like people pointed out you can't stop people's interactions no matter what game play mechanics there is. Even with 'city states' kinda concept people can always form coalitions and non-aggression pacts between themselves. Which could ultimately lead to the same situation we have now given enough time - then what?

It's so weird because I'd think it's in our nature to be greedy and back-stab old friends for lols (at least in eve). But it seems eve players in null-sec are nicer people than I thought. (or maybe it's just based on the whole idea of 'mutual interest' in holding status quo) :p
Prince Kobol
#163 - 2014-09-25 06:57:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Pookoko wrote:


It's so weird because I'd think it's in our nature to be greedy and back-stab old friends for lols (at least in eve). But it seems eve players in null-sec are nicer people than I thought. (or maybe it's just based on the whole idea of 'mutual interest' in holding status quo) :p


Yeah but your forgetting one very important fact. These null sec entities are run by a small handful of people. Null Sec alliances are equivalent to a dictatorship so the decision to go to war rests between a small group not the masses.

Now these small group of people have know each other for many years, have fought against each other, with each other, talked on forums, trolled each other on forums, met each other at various different gatherings etc so there are no grudges, no real hate, no motivation to remove each other.

Instead they talk, discuss and come to agreements and we have what we have today,

Eve 2014 The Proxy Wars have begun
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#164 - 2014-09-25 22:47:47 UTC
Pookoko wrote:
It's so weird because I'd think it's in our nature to be greedy and back-stab old friends for lols (at least in eve). But it seems eve players in null-sec are nicer people than I thought. (or maybe it's just based on the whole idea of 'mutual interest' in holding status quo) :p

There was this one coalition that apparently we were told supposedly existed to perhaps destroy us.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#165 - 2014-09-26 08:39:41 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Pookoko wrote:
It's so weird because I'd think it's in our nature to be greedy and back-stab old friends for lols (at least in eve). But it seems eve players in null-sec are nicer people than I thought. (or maybe it's just based on the whole idea of 'mutual interest' in holding status quo) :p

There was this one coalition that apparently we were told supposedly existed to perhaps destroy us.


Two in fact. Although they told us, with a nice powerpoint presentation.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2014-09-26 12:07:40 UTC
Pookoko wrote:
As I said in one of my earlier post, null sec power mechanic wasn't something I had vast experience in. I certainly learned a lot from the discussions on null sec here, and while I still do think that bigger entities who've worked hard to get there should be rewarded and hold advantage accordingly, just for the purpose of making the game more 'fun' some form of conflict driver would be good.

It just seems though that giving whatever advantages to smaller entities may not be the complete problem solver. Like people pointed out you can't stop people's interactions no matter what game play mechanics there is. Even with 'city states' kinda concept people can always form coalitions and non-aggression pacts between themselves. Which could ultimately lead to the same situation we have now given enough time - then what?

It's so weird because I'd think it's in our nature to be greedy and back-stab old friends for lols (at least in eve). But it seems eve players in null-sec are nicer people than I thought. (or maybe it's just based on the whole idea of 'mutual interest' in holding status quo) :p


Look to the history of wormholes for some of this.

Null entities tried breaking in there repeatedly a number of years ago. They were turned back repeatedly.

The loose affiliations there would form up and bash them down when they'd try and setup "null in w-space".

This was possible due to the mechanics of that space. The residents knew how to navigate and locate entrances quickly and easily and the drastically reduced ability to "blob" and "hot drop" limited the options of those who were based out of null.

Mechanic adjustments can enable or disable various forms of play - just like you have highsec with concord, lowsec without it, NPC nullsec, SOV nullsec (and those 2 spaces do operate differently) along with w-space -- game mechanics are what makes those areas work the way they do.

Oh and no null players aren't "nicer people" than you thought. It is mutual interest/self preservation. Every time a major force there has been defeated, the remnants join existing groups - while others leave. They will even join groups that they vehemently derided, bordering on flat out hated due to their ideas, opinions and "ethics".

It was either join or get out so some left while most others joined up. Not because they wanted to, simply because there were no other real options for them if they wanted to operate there - it takes a type of permission from those on top.

Many would bail in a heart beat if there were a chance to fight and win but because there is no chance, they cluster up and hope someone else is stupid enough to try and attack - which won't happen.

This mindset is so far along now that pretty much none of them can envision any way it could be redressed without complete destruction of the styles of play that drew them there in the first place.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2014-09-26 12:13:00 UTC
Oh and as for your starting question - if you wish to see diversity across space, you figure out how to keep it enabled. If you wish to see conformity - you don't.
Reiisha
#168 - 2014-09-26 12:43:55 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
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.

Nope, they will just move to Highsec and run L4s and pump even more ISK into the system even easier, and with more safety, than when in nullsec without local.

Congratulations on turning nulsec into an absolute wasteland, by removing local.

Listen, no local works in W space because you can control the entrances and exits to your space. Have neighbors in the next hole, just collapse that hole and you don't have to worry about them stopping by for tea and mayhem, also you have nothing to worry about from hotdrops, or suddenly supercaps. No local works in W space, it won't work in null. It will quickly devolve into the only people in null are there to bash/defend some structure, and that is it. Nobody with any brains is going to rat or mine without an intelligence tool like local. We will simply make our isk in Highsec running level 4 missions, and the "small roaming gangs" will have no targets, and will themselves start to run level fours themselves, or probe out mission runners to gank in Highsec.


In other words, the current risk/reward ratio is way too skewed towards reward in null right now, purely because of local?

When i see people making 2b isk a day in null by running a few anomalies, isn't that rewards enough to justify the risk? I don't understand what you're trying to say. It sounds like 'null is easy isk right now because of local and if it's not easy anymore ill go to a place where it is easy again'.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...