Wormholes

Void Bombs are ok...You only shouldn't bubble at one spot. Jam and Neut are ok, because otherwise no smaller Corp could defend their Assets.

My Experience is that a Deathstar Large Pos is much more annoying.

...and I agree to Jester....I don't want other Citadels in WH Space than in K Space.

Asteroid Belts?
Moon Mining?
ADM style system to increase site respawn rates in active holes rather than letting anomalies pile up en-masse in Cataclysmic Variable systems?
*ducks*

This will likely improve (a lot) with CCP's new ESI api that they announced a while back. Currently the biggest problem for Vippy is the rate limits and ESI will not have any . My initial tests suggest that the refresh speed will be quarter of what it is currently.

Oh boy... Just maybe you shouldn't have gone around evicting everyone and there dog in C5 and C6 space for your RMT and rental empire then then huh

Here's a thought, maybe some people like dual statics that the C4 offers because it allows for longer chains and more targets. And maybe some smaller corps chose to have caps built in their lower class hole because they can be what's known as a force multiplier.

But of course you ex QEX cretins wouldn't have a goddamn clue about anything like that because you just roll in with your RMT bullshitwagons and try and steamroll everything. Funny that when you're on even footings you guys can't hold your own though. I'm sure hacking peoples accounts will work though, I know some of your guys are into that.

And who the hell are you to tell someone they can or cannot have capitals? I guess you were so used to telling everyone what to do when MaxDEL was around you seem to think you're still relevant and capable of it now.

I'm also happy to see capitals stay in lower class holes. Great fun to hunt, and even sweeter to kill because you know they then have to build a new one and can't just buy one. I've killed my fair share of carriers in C4 space.

It's also less likely that the capital you're fighting will have more capital support; which means you can drop bigger things like BS's on them and also means the smaller groups have a chance at capital kills.

I love you men, we are always happy to deliver pain in the your holes. As I can see from your post, we do not live in vain.

Sure, citadels are great.


This isn't necessarily about full blown evictions or groups that can easily field a 30 man attack fleet for that matter. It's about creating more content and forcing ppl to undock and take a fight instead of cuddling up in their Astrahus hangar while the EWAR does it's thing to a <20 man fleet. Fortizars are tough and should be tough, Astrahuses should get a nerf to EWAR which will open up for more content for small to medium'ish groups, which there are a lot of in wh space. Or alternatively some mechanic that will reduce the ewar capability of an Astrahus in wh space.

A carebear/indy/farming corp will obviously oppose this. I get that.

Underlined the important part of your comment.

So what you are saying is: smaller corps shouldn't be able to hold holes against the bigger guys and should just let you roll in with 20 guys and take over their hole? Simply because if they field 5 men to counter your 20 (for example) they'd die?

If five people and their smaller corp can fight and hold their own by using a citadel against you 20 man fleet, then they bloody well deserve to have that hole and you don't.

I'm guessing you weren't around in the days of dickstars, if you thing an Astrahus is an OP EWAR platform.

Provide relevant system information in the current wormhole you're in (i.e. Class 1-6 and static info) tired of pulling up a browser for basic information.

No tl;dr, but you can read the titles to read what you want.

Evictions
Evictions are never about good fights. Evictions are 100% a bigger group smashing everything the smaller group owns, and the smaller group either evacuating frantically, self-destructing everything they can, or fighting back in vain (although very rarely I will admit some great fights do happen, it still remains valid that one group is trying to get rid of another group). And it is usually either "we want their loot" or "that's our content." Neither is a bad reason, that's just what Eve is. But a group that just goes around evicting people is, in my opinion, doing themselves a disservice because even though there will always be targets in wormholes, there will be less and less good ones and more and more smaller, lighter operations. Evictions should definitely have a reason, more so than "that's just what we do."

Terry Pratchett said, "Hit a man too hard and you can only rob him once; hit him just hard enough and you can rob him every week."

That's not saying I endorse extortion, but it means I more prefer the concept of 'more content is better content.' If they can't defend it, blow up one structure, loot it, and leave. It'll hurt, and the group will then either lick their wounds or pack up shop. Destroy everything and they may not be able to recover from that. Hard Knocks made a great example with their recent 'non-eviction.' They blew up some stuff and left. That, in my opinion, is the perfect strategy (not saying I like Hard Knocks or am kissing up to them, just admiring their strategy). "Those *** deserve it" is actually a great reason in my opinion, it tells a good story and is what makes Eve great, player created stories.

A group that is just in a wormhole to farm it is probably running pretty light, and as soon as you start burning them down they'll have already set up shop somewhere else. They may not contribute a lot to 'the glory of wormholes' but they do generate content. Hunting the farmer, shooting the miner, blowing up the explorer. Etc. It's all good content, and their homes are generally not valuable enough to loot.

A group that truly wants to live in wormholes will defend it until they can't (either through sheer number or fatigue), and then die. They'll recover, if they can, and they'll try it again. We've been evicted a number of times, and we're still in W-Space (albeit not the same one). We're too small to defend against the "we want their loot" or "that's our content" but we'll certainly fight when we can. If 20 people show up on our doorstep, we'll fight because of the force multiplier of our citadel. If 30 show up we'll alarm clock for Armor most likely and fight then. If 40 show up, we'll alarm clock and try to find friends. But if 60 or more show up, there's no way we can fight that because we're just too small time, undocking is alpha suicide so why bother? Force multipliers only work so well when the Eve-Meta of n+1 takes effect.

Good Fight Theory
In my opinion, if a group wants a good fight, they should bring an appropriate amount of power to face what they're fighting. Obviously you want to win, so you stack the odds. The defender has home field advantage, but that only counts for so much. If your fleet has more members than their entire corp-count, it's obviously way too many. 30%-70% of w-space is alts, so even that is a poor judgement, but it's still a good place to start if you want good fights. 60 vs 12, definitely too many. But 30 vs 12 might be doable with force multipliers and some luck. If you can field 60 people at a moment's notice you can easily field just 30 for some fun. Then escalations could bring numbers up, and we get great big awesome brawls over tiny targets.

Personally, I think citadels are great (although I haven't seen a Fortizar in action). They shouldn't get nerfed, they shouldn't get buffed. They are performing as they should. Although there are some things that are definitely 'weird' that should probably get fixed when they can. Such as being able to burn down a citadel faster than its 30 minute window, uselessness at range, uselessness of citadel fighters, and so on. Bravo for the folks who found these strategies out and used them to great effect; it still needs to be fixed though (for example: drifter incursions were fun but definitely needed to die).

Corporate Asset Security
I know this was brought up in the last town-hall, but it is still a relevant issue. For opt-in director/CEO access to structure storage. I wrote a paper about this with my proposed change .

On-Topic

• The biggest complaint my group seems to have is the session timers. Necessary, but definitely very inconvenient and we got spoiled by not having them to start with.
• C4 Spawn ranges is absolutely ridiculous, it practically requires carrier support, which as you know is a big target in C4 space. I am not advocating they should be runnable by just a couple of battleships (as hunting C4 caps is something we do too), but my entire corporation of 9 people with alts in sub-caps still took a ridiculous amount of time to run a single site. True, I'm a scrub, but all that slow boating was cancerous. We practically ignore our sites now because they're just not worth doing wit
• C6 Space should absolutely have a dual static. All the other Even Class holes do, it's 'bout time! There needs to be a reason for people to risk the "instant eviction just because you live here and we can" mentality that is high-class space. I know my corp would consider it if we got big enough, because we've grown accustomed to the dual static life style; far more content per day.

That's it, close book. Sorry about that!