Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Talking about another thing, I thought that destroying the iHub would reset the ADM and looking at Providence it doesn't seem so.

Another reason not to fight, if the fleet that you risk to defend the iHub is several times more expensive than the 300Misk of the iHub and your ADM is not seriously affected.

The selective quoting didn't miss out on anything. It filtered out the "the actual point" you already presented 2 posts back.

I sympathise with sov holders who believe that chasing ceptors detracts from the current intended exploitation and monetisation of sov and propose an explicit shift in priorities to allow more time to troll the trollceptors back.

I don't sympathise with owners that believe they should smite anyone who would question their claim for some backwater systems by piling on a space coffin BC, which ironically will not incite big and fun fights you so impatiently try to fabricate by forcing people into a 60mill hull, as opposed to a 20mill. Keep telling yourselves that you want people to commit assets - the reality is you just want a killmail to follow the notifications.

In a sandbox you make your own fun with the selection of abstract tools you are given. To demand that sov wanding gets fun is like asking for PvP arenas to spawn whenever you press F1. Sov wanding is a formal declaration of wanting your space, but nobody owes you a fight for it. The growing exhaustion of PvP is seen throughout all walks of the game. It's just how it is. Trap your enemy like everyone else does.

To address the concern of ceptors moving out of range by the time a defense gang lands - inverse POS shields around entosisable objects, entosis-active ships can get in but not out until the cycle ends. This at least isolates the location of the aggressor, whilst still giving him the opportunity to outmaneuver and escape.

Dotlan is having issues with that

If theat were the case, we'd support he new system fully.

It's nto taht it detracts from anything. It takes moments of time to deal with. The issue is that it's a based around broing mechanics. The gameplay isn;t fun for anyone. Aggressors do it because they feel rewarded by making the defender respond and defenders respond to keep their space. The actual gameplay behind it is crap. As the novelty wears off, less and less people will

Don't be ridiculous. BCs already make it into our space and do fine, and "backwater systems" won't have defenders, so ship type is irrelevant. The only reason to support frigates is so they can run away with ease when engaged. Bigger ships will be worth defending, so aggressors would be encouraged to actually engage in a fight.

Except of course that most people doing it don't want the space. Sov wanding is a dull mecanic. The only difference between it and the old structure shoot is that aggressors need to commit next to nothing to do it.

if that was the case you would unblue your whole coalition.

No, not that much fight. Besides, most of the alliances in CFC would crumble on their own, and an exodus of unprecedented magnitudes to CONDI would take place in order to keep the safety and security big numbers provide.

To be quite frank: Before the great financial crisis in the USA and Europe, I could have seen CFC crumble under its own weigh. Some signs were there with several alliances getting kicked out or merge with others. But since this crisis, people are first and foremost interested in safety and stability, even at the expenses of less fun and excitement (just look at the closure of -FA- and where most of its corps went afterwards, the big ones in particular). CFC provides these things, which makes them self-preserving under these new circumstances. I think that the majority there would rather unsub than leave CFC for more uncertain entities.

I am not arguing against that people want be part of big groups. DARK is a big group, Solar, Stainwaggon are big groups. What the aforementioned groups have in common is that they have no way whatsoever to obliterate the entire Null sec at will. 1 other group, on the other hand, due to its size and organization, can provide a level or stability and safety that functions as such a strong magnet for more and more people join them to seek that safety and easy gameplay instead of seeking a more risky and adventurous gameplay. People "enjoy" this safe gameplay, yet you still argue for more conflict and argue that you do not avoid risk. Fights take place in Providence or Querious, Immensea or in Uedama, not at their door steps. What irks me is that hypocrisy of the players expecting safety and stability on the one hand and fun and excitement on the other at the same time. If you need to deploy 2 large alliances to Curse from Branch to stir some air, in my opinion something is really wrong.

And in my opinion, the crisis we experience for years now is very much one big factor that drives this development. Big groups of the sizes of DARK or even Stainwaggon are one thing, they can influence a limited area of the cluster effectively anc cause much trouble there. What they cannot do is just go to the other side of the universe in large force, stir a lot of air there, while having their assets at home safe and secure, and return completely unscathed and unopposed. Big groups are fine. But CFC is beyond big. And it is an unhealthy huge. Accept that or not, I do not care, but this problem is not solvable with any kind of mechanic sans really drastic measures -- and that would lead to your suggested unsubbing of people who "enjoy" this safe gameplay style.
Besides: You already do go to High sec to make ISK. That's a moot point on your end. I currently watch parts of one of EXE's mining corps sit around in Domain, see CFC Rattlesnakes in Tash-Murkon fly around for missions, among other things. If I flew around Forge, Citadel and Lonetrek more, I would probably see an even worse image. And this is only the people that are in CFC itself doing this stuff.

So your problem is that a group is bigger and better than the other big groups? You realise this will always be the case right? Someone will always be the winning group.

Except of course that being in a group where the majority of the rest of EVE wants you dead is nowhere near as safe as staying in highsec. Hell, it's not even as safe as living in NPC null. People can show up and take away a station with billions and billions of isk worth of my stuff in it. That's mechanically impossible to do in NPC null.

And in my opinion the game has different areas for different activities and what you're after is the ability to take our area away from us by having the mechanics unbalanced in your favour. I don't believe there is a "crisis" beyond EVE having too many players unwilling to put in the effort to achieve what they want.

I make my isk in highsec, yes, as do most people who are remotely sane. Nullsec income is terrible. Surely if i wanted safety I would live in highsec too though, not fly around in nullsec where I can be shot at any moment.

And lol, it's definitely not safe in highsec if you're watching people in CFC corps flying around highsec. You know how many wardecs we get?

Please, even you honestly can't believe that clap trap.

The Imperium is all about safety in numbers.



Quit don't quit, just don't try to say The Imperium is anything more than the jurassic park of new eden, dinosaurs grimly hanging on to life in a universe that is not suited to them .
Your threat "If CCP go to far down that road" that many of those who choose to hide in mega groups will quit - Good - No-one really wants your stuff, biomass it along with your characters.

Wow, that last part is fantastic. I wholeheartedly thank you for that line.

I, too, make ISK in a lot of different places. However, I do not complain about High sec. CFC, on the other hand, regularly grabs pitch forks and torches and tirades about how risk-averse High sec people are and how the remove themselves from PVP, among other things. I would have a lot less problems with CFC being in High sec if they were not so hypocritical.