These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#381 - 2015-04-25 22:21:01 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Not to mention that you're just addinging another specialised ship role like eg: Combat Recons (which everyone brings anyway) with a sig amp or 2 to take them up to the maximum of 12 locakable targets.

I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .


Every hear of TiDi? Probably not cuz your not in a badass nullsec allaince like myself npc corps dont need lots of target locks but elite nullsec alliances do dude
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#382 - 2015-04-26 22:22:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Not to mention that you're just addinging another specialised ship role like eg: Combat Recons (which everyone brings anyway) with a sig amp or 2 to take them up to the maximum of 12 locakable targets.

I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .


Every hear of TiDi? Probably not cuz your not in a badass nullsec allaince like myself npc corps dont need lots of target locks but elite nullsec alliances do dude

LOL, only 90% of my seven years in Eve has been spent in nulsec, sorry if i don't meet your standards. The biggest drawback to nulsec as it is now is the giant groups who believe the only way to fight is in huge numbers - Brave tried but ended up being the latest victim of such tactics, hence their move to NPCNUL.

Try reading the post see if you can respond to the theoretical proposal, instead of comparing to past events you only saw on youtube.

NB: TIDI is a thing of the past, there will never again be a fight where TIDI is needed, CCP have done a good job ensuring that.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#383 - 2015-04-26 22:27:41 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Not to mention that you're just addinging another specialised ship role like eg: Combat Recons (which everyone brings anyway) with a sig amp or 2 to take them up to the maximum of 12 locakable targets.

I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .


Every hear of TiDi? Probably not cuz your not in a badass nullsec allaince like myself npc corps dont need lots of target locks but elite nullsec alliances do dude

LOL, only 90% of my seven years in Eve has been spent in nulsec, sorry if i don't meet your standards. The biggest drawback to nulsec as it is now is the giant groups who believe the only way to fight is in huge numbers - Brave tried but ended up being the latest victim of such tactics, hence their move to NPCNUL.

Try reading the post see if you can respond to the theoretical proposal, instead of comparing to past events you only saw on youtube.

NB: TIDI is a thing of the past, there will never again be a fight where TIDI is needed, CCP have done a good job ensuring that.



Lmao are you joking? TiDi happens ALL THE TIME. I am sure currently right bow in game somewhere a couple systems are under TiDi. Wow dude, mr npc corp you really dont know what you are talking about.


TiDi happens SOOOOOOOO often. You are seriously ignorant
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#384 - 2015-04-26 22:53:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .

It would help under the changes you suggested. It would make your fleet immune to an opponent.

Aside from that, there are several reasons to lock multiple targets and a lot more variety in pvp than shoot the primary.

For example:

- Sending drones against support that is at range (eg. ewar or logi) while focusing turret/launcher fire on a different ship.

- Having multiple targets at the start of a fight and splitting fire across all of their fleet to confuse/overwhelm their logistics.

- So they don't know who is the next primary.

- So that DPS can be reassigned if logistics reps hold, to try to punch through reps before they are reassigned.

- So that DPS can be shifted as threats emerge in a fight (eg. tackle support gets close to your fleet and you want to avoid being tackled, killing a support ship that has one of your ships tackled, etc.)

That only focuses really on DPS reasons, without considering logistics or ewar reasons. There are many more examples where having multiple targets locked is a good thing in a fight.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#385 - 2015-04-27 00:15:46 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:


Lmao are you joking? TiDi happens ALL THE TIME. I am sure currently right bow in game somewhere a couple systems are under TiDi. Wow dude, mr npc corp you really dont know what you are talking about.


TiDi happens SOOOOOOOO often. You are seriously ignorant


Looks like tidi happened only if Brave arround. Cause only Brave has that many bodies all arround.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Jenshae Chiroptera
#386 - 2015-04-27 01:26:21 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
... You are seriously ignorant
You are probably still a newbie (new player) but be careful not to slide into being a n00b (wilfully ignorant) because you think you know everything about EVE.

There are loads of sub-groups who make smaller fleets and gangs, who even when they are involved in a huge fleet fight are doing it from a few systems away, lighting cynos, supplying a POS, keeping out reinforcements or shooting those trying to escape in pods.
So, there are loads of players who do not sit in TiDi but spend years in Null Sec. Even whole alliances, the smaller sort, renters or those that live on the fringes or in NPC Null who don't get involved in coalition mincing machines.

I have been in a fair few large fleets but TiDi seldom happens because you can get nodes reinforced.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#387 - 2015-04-27 01:32:19 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
... You are seriously ignorant
You are probably still a newbie (new player) but be careful not to slide into being a n00b (wilfully ignorant) because you think you know everything about EVE.

There are loads of sub-groups who make smaller fleets and gangs, who even when they are involved in a huge fleet fight are doing it from a few systems away, lighting cynos, supplying a POS, keeping out reinforcements or shooting those trying to escape in pods.
So, there are loads of players who do not sit in TiDi but spend years in Null Sec. Even whole alliances, the smaller sort, renters or those that live on the fringes or in NPC Null who don't get involved in coalition mincing machines.

I have been in a fair few large fleets but TiDi seldom happens because you can get nodes reinforced.


Dude said "TiDi is a thing of the past and will NEVER happen again because ccp fixed it"

Hense why i called him ignorant
Jenshae Chiroptera
#388 - 2015-04-27 01:54:49 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
... You are seriously ignorant
You are probably still a newbie (new player) but be careful not to slide into being a n00b (wilfully ignorant) because you think you know everything about EVE.

There are loads of sub-groups who make smaller fleets and gangs, who even when they are involved in a huge fleet fight are doing it from a few systems away, lighting cynos, supplying a POS, keeping out reinforcements or shooting those trying to escape in pods.
So, there are loads of players who do not sit in TiDi but spend years in Null Sec. Even whole alliances, the smaller sort, renters or those that live on the fringes or in NPC Null who don't get involved in coalition mincing machines.

I have been in a fair few large fleets but TiDi seldom happens because you can get nodes reinforced.
Dude said "TiDi is a thing of the past and will NEVER happen again because ccp fixed it"
Hense why i called him ignorant
Fozzie SOV + lots of small gangs = Low Sec 2.0
So, he might be bitter and sarcastic about the coming changes and the solution of how it is a thing of the past.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#389 - 2015-04-27 06:47:20 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
... You are seriously ignorant
You are probably still a newbie (new player) but be careful not to slide into being a n00b (wilfully ignorant) because you think you know everything about EVE.

There are loads of sub-groups who make smaller fleets and gangs, who even when they are involved in a huge fleet fight are doing it from a few systems away, lighting cynos, supplying a POS, keeping out reinforcements or shooting those trying to escape in pods.
So, there are loads of players who do not sit in TiDi but spend years in Null Sec. Even whole alliances, the smaller sort, renters or those that live on the fringes or in NPC Null who don't get involved in coalition mincing machines.

I have been in a fair few large fleets but TiDi seldom happens because you can get nodes reinforced.


Dude said "TiDi is a thing of the past and will NEVER happen again because ccp fixed it"

Hense why i called him ignorant

Last time there was any serious TIDI was B-R (I was there, with 2 dreads and a carrier) - There will never be anything like it again. 21 hours of painful, 45 min siege cycles, 5 mins between volleys from a moros, 10 mins or more for reps to land if you were lucky enough to get reps before the TIDI killed you. My only loss according to the killboards, happened 30 mins before i saw I was in my pod.
I was also there the 1st time TIDI was ever used and nothing seen today compares. A major event run by CCP, where a large percentage of attendees never made it to the final destination - TIDI stopped them getting there before the event was over. CCP reinforced some of the nodes but not others, fleets run by CCP volunteers were either decimated when told to jump into a giant nulsec gate camp or, the lucky ones, just never got that far.

CCP's fix - Fatigue and jump range limits, not bad in themselves but game breakers in other ways. Especially for those of us who spent years and many dollars training up for the biggest ships eve had to offer, only to have them relegated to lowsec to reduce travel needs. You would need to know a little about the game to know the affects those changes had.

Mr NPC corp ? - Read the thread lil miss been around 2 months - Unlike you this is not my only character (as is stated in this very thread), in fact I have recently sold 2 more characters, with more time in nulsec on them than you are ever likely to see. Possibly this covert cyno, cloaky scout has seen more nulsec than you will ever see. A month recently in renter space seeing all their miners complaining about the cloaky in their mining system was fun.

What you will have in nulsec soon, FozzieSov, will compare more to FW but without the rewards and therefore incentive to participate.

IGNORANT?? I think the ignorance tag belongs elsewhere
I try to be kind to noobs as they are the future of Eve but seriously, if you are the future of Eve, it might just be better if it didn't have one.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#390 - 2015-04-27 06:57:49 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .

It would help under the changes you suggested. It would make your fleet immune to an opponent.

Aside from that, there are several reasons to lock multiple targets and a lot more variety in pvp than shoot the primary.

For example:

- Sending drones against support that is at range (eg. ewar or logi) while focusing turret/launcher fire on a different ship.

- Having multiple targets at the start of a fight and splitting fire across all of their fleet to confuse/overwhelm their logistics.

- So they don't know who is the next primary.

- So that DPS can be reassigned if logistics reps hold, to try to punch through reps before they are reassigned.

- So that DPS can be shifted as threats emerge in a fight (eg. tackle support gets close to your fleet and you want to avoid being tackled, killing a support ship that has one of your ships tackled, etc.)

That only focuses really on DPS reasons, without considering logistics or ewar reasons. There are many more examples where having multiple targets locked is a good thing in a fight.

Now look at it as i described.
Each squad in a fleet is responsible for a group of targets, each member only has one active lock which he (and the rest of the squad) can fire on.
If joeBlow gets tackled there would be a squad (or several if a big enough fight) to deal with opposition tackle.
2 or 3 squads whose only job is to eliminate opposing logi.

A lot more like real combat where players engage and are engaged by smaller parts of a whole. Not 300 locking 1 player and blap - your gone - next..

Fleet engagements would become real fights instead of killmail whores splitting weapons, shooting multiple targets, to get on as many kills as they could.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
Already Replaced.
#391 - 2015-04-27 07:27:37 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .

It would help under the changes you suggested. It would make your fleet immune to an opponent.

Aside from that, there are several reasons to lock multiple targets and a lot more variety in pvp than shoot the primary.

For example:

- Sending drones against support that is at range (eg. ewar or logi) while focusing turret/launcher fire on a different ship.

- Having multiple targets at the start of a fight and splitting fire across all of their fleet to confuse/overwhelm their logistics.

- So they don't know who is the next primary.

- So that DPS can be reassigned if logistics reps hold, to try to punch through reps before they are reassigned.

- So that DPS can be shifted as threats emerge in a fight (eg. tackle support gets close to your fleet and you want to avoid being tackled, killing a support ship that has one of your ships tackled, etc.)

That only focuses really on DPS reasons, without considering logistics or ewar reasons. There are many more examples where having multiple targets locked is a good thing in a fight.

Now look at it as i described.
Each squad in a fleet is responsible for a group of targets, each member only has one active lock which he (and the rest of the squad) can fire on.
If joeBlow gets tackled there would be a squad (or several if a big enough fight) to deal with opposition tackle.
2 or 3 squads whose only job is to eliminate opposing logi.

A lot more like real combat where players engage and are engaged by smaller parts of a whole. Not 300 locking 1 player and blap - your gone - next..

Fleet engagements would become real fights instead of killmail whores splitting weapons, shooting multiple targets, to get on as many kills as they could.



this idea you have to restrict a single target being locked by many is very open to being used as an exploit surely not?

why you can't wait and see what changes are coming first then make a comment about them is beyond me.
everything is this thread is nothing but speculation and selfcentered needs to cater for what you want from EVE.
this is nothing more than a what if thread that's lasted way longer than i thought it would.

i know this much, in the 8 years i've played i've seen just how players find a way around just about everything. you can't rule out the human factor.
you claim there will never be another fight like B-R5RB. i believe as do many i'm sure that you are so so wrong.
but let time tell yea Blink
this is all just talk,, and talk is cheap.Roll
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#392 - 2015-04-27 08:47:27 UTC
Eve is a game we all love and sometimes maybe hate. Everyone goign trough the trouble of posting here loves it. Players and groups in it have evolved, reaching into rl politics and agreements that stretch the sandbox. Sometimes breaking it

Its exemplary for a sandbox that it even allows that, what can u do if all players decide suddenly to never shoot eahcother anymore? There is plenty conflict drivers, and building. Ccp effort atm try to counter certain trends, but in the end issue is that the trend if enated by players, is goign to come through anyway. Restraint never works well to motivate people .

I love eve and i promote it, any player can put a link to eve in his facebook and be a recruiter for a epic game we love. Ratehr then breake it, make it!
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#393 - 2015-04-27 11:53:41 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .

It would help under the changes you suggested. It would make your fleet immune to an opponent.

Aside from that, there are several reasons to lock multiple targets and a lot more variety in pvp than shoot the primary.

For example:

- Sending drones against support that is at range (eg. ewar or logi) while focusing turret/launcher fire on a different ship.

- Having multiple targets at the start of a fight and splitting fire across all of their fleet to confuse/overwhelm their logistics.

- So they don't know who is the next primary.

- So that DPS can be reassigned if logistics reps hold, to try to punch through reps before they are reassigned.

- So that DPS can be shifted as threats emerge in a fight (eg. tackle support gets close to your fleet and you want to avoid being tackled, killing a support ship that has one of your ships tackled, etc.)

That only focuses really on DPS reasons, without considering logistics or ewar reasons. There are many more examples where having multiple targets locked is a good thing in a fight.

Now look at it as i described.
Each squad in a fleet is responsible for a group of targets, each member only has one active lock which he (and the rest of the squad) can fire on.
If joeBlow gets tackled there would be a squad (or several if a big enough fight) to deal with opposition tackle.
2 or 3 squads whose only job is to eliminate opposing logi.

A lot more like real combat where players engage and are engaged by smaller parts of a whole. Not 300 locking 1 player and blap - your gone - next..

Fleet engagements would become real fights instead of killmail whores splitting weapons, shooting multiple targets, to get on as many kills as they could.



this idea you have to restrict a single target being locked by many is very open to being used as an exploit surely not?

why you can't wait and see what changes are coming first then make a comment about them is beyond me.
everything is this thread is nothing but speculation and selfcentered needs to cater for what you want from EVE.
this is nothing more than a what if thread that's lasted way longer than i thought it would.

i know this much, in the 8 years i've played i've seen just how players find a way around just about everything. you can't rule out the human factor.
you claim there will never be another fight like B-R5RB. i believe as do many i'm sure that you are so so wrong.
but let time tell yea Blink
this is all just talk,, and talk is cheap.Roll

This was a theoretical talk.. No-one was asking for change just chatting but whatever.

As I said in another thread recently. I'm over trying to make plans on game play based on 6 weeks at a time of incremental change that ties into nothing at all.. After nearly 8 years, I have no idea what to do now.

The only way there could ever be another B-R is if CCP back pedaled on many recent and proposed changes, the whole reason for B-R is being removed from the game and replaced with mini games on a timetable. . There will never be another B-R. There may be the odd fight here and there but never again one that could involve the sort of numbers or ships seen in the past.
Until CCP re-purpose Titans and Supers they hold threat value - Which is enough to ensure, no big capital fight.
On this I would love to be proven wrong, two years in a pilot that can fly one ship only and 100 bil invested, in a semi mobile bridge. To sell that pilot now, I would not even get skillbook and implant value.

CCP to an extent is removing the human factor with prime times and pre-determined capture the node contests. Anything that restricts freedom of choice limits the human factor, Entosis links and prime time is doing exactly that.

CCP released the blog 3 months early to get feedback from players and have a dialogue about the proposal - That was the last anyone heard from CCP on the subject, except for a tongue in cheek (I hope) reply - It will be awesome.

Core - I spent years promoting Eve but it is hard to promote a game based on lies - Telling potential newcomers how much fun eve is, is simply a lie.
And what would happen if players decided not to shoot at each other? Take a look at sov space, the result of allowing RL politics into the game are self evident.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#394 - 2015-04-27 11:58:50 UTC
BR made for great PR, but in every other aspect - especially recruiting new players who actually subscribed - it was a failure.

The jump and sic changes have already had a dramatic effect with multiple regions abandoned by the bloc powers and free for the taking.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Hemmo Paskiainen
#395 - 2015-04-27 14:07:29 UTC
This game is still in its early access and is still far from being gud. Like some people said before, just come back/try again in another 5 yrs or soo. Maybe sov works by then.

Untill than, off to DayZ

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?

Net Malone
Perkone
Caldari State
#396 - 2015-04-27 14:12:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Net Malone
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

I will give the short version because I am getting sick of typing this:

New SOV is going to be like FW, too easily flipped until people don't care. So, they will grab SOV until they get sick of being griefed and if SOV becomes worth holding again then they will be evicted.


IMO you understand perfectly how things are planned to work soon. But you are very pesimistic on that.

However thanks to you CCP now have perfect tool to manage null diversification - GRIEF SLIDER !

Less grieffing - aliances owns more space, coalitions are forming.
More grieffing - aliances shatteres, more free-ports appears.

Nice :)

How this slider can work ? Eg. by changing entosis module price or possibility to own/build it.

Also would be nice if wining entosis war will "catch" corp/aliance ceo/director (s) into sov part they won. So
next part of sov need to be conquered by other "managers" - as we see with BNI: more managers = more
parties :) Some skill requirement is needed to prevent alts holding sov. Or just limited sov per RL person.

Edit:
As for new players experience - it is perfectly good to be in HS for first year of gameplay...
Hemmo Paskiainen
#397 - 2015-04-27 14:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Eve is a game we all love and sometimes maybe hate. Everyone goign trough the trouble of posting here loves it. Players and groups in it have evolved, reaching into rl politics and agreements that stretch the sandbox. Sometimes breaking it

Its exemplary for a sandbox that it even allows that, what can u do if all players decide suddenly to never shoot eahcother anymore? There is plenty conflict drivers, and building. Ccp effort atm try to counter certain trends, but in the end issue is that the trend if enated by players, is goign to come through anyway. Restraint never works well to motivate people .

I love eve and i promote it, any player can put a link to eve in his facebook and be a recruiter for a epic game we love. Ratehr then breake it, make it!


Eve is like a relationship, or love on a beach. In the latter, you love the act but sometimes you hate it otherwise because you have gotten sand in the vagin. You will just hate the sand.... for being- and acting like sand....

That could happen two or three times and while most people would grab a bucket of water for some moisturizing after those times, and make the sand act less sandy, ccp just like to shovel it all together and trying to make castles out of it...

You see...

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#398 - 2015-04-27 22:03:29 UTC
Net Malone wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

I will give the short version because I am getting sick of typing this:

New SOV is going to be like FW, too easily flipped until people don't care. So, they will grab SOV until they get sick of being griefed and if SOV becomes worth holding again then they will be evicted.


IMO you understand perfectly how things are planned to work soon. But you are very pesimistic on that.

However thanks to you CCP now have perfect tool to manage null diversification - GRIEF SLIDER !

Less grieffing - aliances owns more space, coalitions are forming.
More grieffing - aliances shatteres, more free-ports appears.

Nice :)

How this slider can work ? Eg. by changing entosis module price or possibility to own/build it.

Also would be nice if wining entosis war will "catch" corp/aliance ceo/director (s) into sov part they won. So
next part of sov need to be conquered by other "managers" - as we see with BNI: more managers = more
parties :) Some skill requirement is needed to prevent alts holding sov. Or just limited sov per RL person.

Edit:
As for new players experience - it is perfectly good to be in HS for first year of gameplay...

Nothing pessimistic about Jenshae's post, it is based on having played eve long enough to have a good idea how the player base will react.

Your "grief slider" is pretty accurate, except the existing coalitions aren't silly enough to allow another coalition (that may become a threat to them) get established, so any new group (or unaligned group) taking sov under the changes will only keep it for as long as the existing coalitions want them there.

The Entosis module is by design, a throw away, it will be cheap (even if it is 100 mil or 1 bil) and disposable. It is the only real module needed now to grief with so no matter the cost or method of getting it, there will be more than enough of them around.

New player experience, yes your right, as long as every new player is happy to spend his or her first year in highsec. Many aren't, they start to play eve to pvp and see the universe. If I were starting eve now and was told i would have to stay in highsec for the 1st year, I think I would be looking for a new game pretty quickly.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#399 - 2015-04-27 23:54:24 UTC
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Eve is a game we all love and sometimes maybe hate. Everyone goign trough the trouble of posting here loves it. Players and groups in it have evolved, reaching into rl politics and agreements that stretch the sandbox. Sometimes breaking it

Its exemplary for a sandbox that it even allows that, what can u do if all players decide suddenly to never shoot eahcother anymore? There is plenty conflict drivers, and building. Ccp effort atm try to counter certain trends, but in the end issue is that the trend if enated by players, is goign to come through anyway. Restraint never works well to motivate people .

I love eve and i promote it, any player can put a link to eve in his facebook and be a recruiter for a epic game we love. Ratehr then breake it, make it!
Do you think that with the time that has gone into EVE, that people now have too much to lose, to really fight?
Is play denial and stomping the small groups to prevent them growing and challenging others the best way forward?
How does CCP code counters to shenanigans? Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#400 - 2015-04-28 10:10:50 UTC
Making sov "easy to flip" advantages people who actually want to live in the space, as opposed to just owning it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016