These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Grow some extremely durable genitalia.

First post First post
Author
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
#581 - 2012-05-29 15:12:25 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sounds like fun.

Let's do it.


You gona talk to Soundwave?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#582 - 2012-05-29 15:20:39 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
And someone else could wipe out yours if you overextend.

Voila, actual risk in nullsec.

Tobiaz wrote:
Anyway I don't think nerfing jump&bridge mechanics into uselessness is good. Just massively increase their cost to the point where it becomes hours of work for an individual to pay for a single jump (and even more for supercaps). This means using capitals for static defense costs little and using them on alliance-level to conquer a moon or an outpost would be economically viable investment.

Balancing anything squarely on cost will not work. All you'll see happen is that the guys who already have titans will be much harder to actually get out of their space, because it'll cost so much to attack that position that EVE'd be even more stagnant than it is now.

Tobiaz wrote:
Don't forget: it also becomes a logistical problem if you can't simply continue to jump in cheap ice from empire.

I've no problems with increasing the difference in range between combat ships and noncombat ships.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Malice Redeemer
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#583 - 2012-05-29 15:55:06 UTC
Grow some extremely durable genitalia
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#584 - 2012-05-29 16:53:53 UTC
“Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.” ― Betty White
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#585 - 2012-05-29 16:58:50 UTC
More coming later, only up to page 18 of this whine fest.... Shocked

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
None of which matter to the point. Nothing your presenting has any bearing on local being the one feature in EVE that contradicts and makes the whole game a campfest.

Static, predictable routes, static predictable un-docks, static predictable pve content, and to a lesser degree, local. Delayed local only works in WH's because there, the PVE content is always dynamic, there are *no* predictable ways in and out, and "gate camp" bookmarks only work while *that* wormhole is alive... Not to mention there are no "tactical bookmarks" no "sniper bookmarks" all the things that come with static travel lanes.

As has been pointed out (and you have failed to make *any* cogent argument against) making low-sec/null-sec more dependent on alts for intell, and increasing the risk & effort will only serve to drive more people out of those spaces.

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
It makes nonconsentual targeted pvp an impossibility. **** the victim. It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes stealth and scouting from the game, suprise attacks and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak.


Non-consensual * at least spell it right...

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Suicide ganking makes hi-secmining an impossibility. **** the attackers! It makes EVE suck. Having a mechanism that completely removes defense fleets and tanking from the game, ability to hide and endless other often hyped features isnt balance. Its ******* weak.

Your well thought out and reasoned answer sounds as lame assed as a motivation as all the people screaming about Hulkageddon/suicide ganking...

Selinate wrote:
No it doesn't. Roaming gangs and pirates have to find the miners/plexers/etc. just as well as the miners/plexers/etc. have to be on active lookout for the gangs and such.

FFS this is how it happens in wormholes and it really just does not give the "aggressor" an advantage at all...

FFS - WH's only work with delayed local because there aren't *static* anything except moons/planets and the sun - if you have static structures, pve content and routes, removing local adds *nothing* and removes incentive from even more people to try 0.0 or low-sec. FFS - only 5.4% of the population in Eve lives there... pretty good indication of how many people like the "no local" thing...

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Tobiaz
Spacerats
#586 - 2012-05-29 19:52:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Lord Zim wrote:

Balancing anything squarely on cost will not work. All you'll see happen is that the guys who already have titans will be much harder to actually get out of their space, because it'll cost so much to attack that position that EVE'd be even more stagnant than it is now.
If you make it expensive enough, it WILL work. The point is that the cost of buying something isn't as useful to restrict proliferation as much as the cost of using it.

Besides that, ice also means mining it and hauling (which also becomes more expensive). You can't solve both by simply throwing more ISK at it.

And yes alliances already having a lot of capital ships are at an advantage, but is that so bad? In the end a bigger number of active players can still beat anything. Don't forget: a big jump&bridge fuel increase will shatter all big null-coalitions, because they'll have to find fights closer to home and stay closer to home to defend it as well.

In a way it's sad the drone regions got nerfed so hard. They were excellent breeding grounds for capitals, while not being very desirable for anything else, thus breeding cap-heavy alliances eager for conquest. The dumping of cheap dronepoo-minerals in empire would have simply stopped if the JF consumed too much fuel to make it profitable. Too bad CCP didn't understand that.
Quote:

Tobiaz wrote:
Don't forget: it also becomes a logistical problem if you can't simply continue to jump in cheap ice from empire.


I've no problems with increasing the difference in range between combat ships and noncombat ships.

Jumpfreighters are causing possibly even more problems then combat ships. Null and empire shouldn't be joined at the hip logistically.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Mindseamstress
Jovian Labs
Jovian Enterprises
#587 - 2012-05-29 20:31:05 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
alot of stuff


I appreciate your view but it will create an imbalance in risk versus reward that will lead to overcompensating rewards in nullsec. Local has to be removed across the board.

Second, local has a dulling effect on pvp. It makes it suck. It makes many skills largely useless and at minimum boring. Many people in hisec pvp and fixing or rather removing the tedium of camping due to local is not a benefit that should be given to just one subset of pvpers.

My primary reasons for null sec only are based on the fact that Null sec is lawless space and it makes no sense that local would exist there. Also no local in Null is part of a package of alterations I believe should occur to Null as it is very stagnant and boring at this point and a large part of the pvp is gate camping with little to no risk to the campers.


Removing local has no real effect on high sec law and order. It only affects war. One can die in a martyrdom operation in hisec with local as is because it can come from someone completely anonymous. Having no local wouldn't effect that one way or the other save for making the suicide ganker have to work to locate their target.

I honestly wish the orthodox carebears could see how much less likely they would be to die to a suicide gank with local removed. They overestimate how well seeing someone in hisec local is protecting them and underestimate how not having their presence revealed in hisec local would shelter them.


I do fully support your proposal to remove local (local is a stupid idea in the first place), and yes it would make the game a lot more exciting and wars more meaningful, even for carebears such as myself (these days at least). I do suspect that CCP, given its current predicaments around screwed-up patches, might be reluctant to accept the risk this would pose to the retention of the player base (not to say it couldn't attract more players, but it's a bit of a punch in the dark).
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#588 - 2012-05-29 20:33:54 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Static, predictable routes, static predictable un-docks, static predictable pve content, and to a lesser degree, local. Delayed local only works in WH's because there, the PVE content is always dynamic, there are *no* predictable ways in and out, and "gate camp" bookmarks only work while *that* wormhole is alive... Not to mention there are no "tactical bookmarks" no "sniper bookmarks" all the things that come with static travel lanes.


there's also the whole cyno thing

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

General Freight
GIRLFRIEND SURF TEAM
#589 - 2012-05-29 21:30:21 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:
“Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.” ― Betty White


This.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#590 - 2012-05-29 22:02:59 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
If you make it expensive enough, it WILL work.

You know what happened the last time CCP said that? Supercarriers and titans happened.

No, if you absolutely want to fix "force projection", you don't fix it by making the it monstrously expensive to run, the way to fix it is to make it so the act of moving them from one place to the other takes time. Why? Because if there's one thing that's really limited in EVE, which doesn't unjustly impact f.ex alliances down south, it's time. Not ISK, time.

If something like this was actually implemented, then the act of moving your capital or supercapital fleet would be something you put more thought into than I believe you do today.

Tobiaz wrote:
Jumpfreighters are causing possibly even more problems then combat ships. Null and empire shouldn't be joined at the hip logistically.

The problems aren't just because of JFs, even though they help make it "worse". Nullsec doesn't have enough capacity for sustaining itself in any way, shape or form, and I wouldn't be surprised if some numbercruncher could come up with a nice long list of systems in hisec which actually outperforms Deklein as a region. I've also yet to see a station which can deal with copying, inventing, refining and manufacturing at the same time, which means that compared to empire, manufacturing is a ******* chore. And again, the main reason I'm getting **** imported isn't because it's cheaper, but because it means it's less work, less hassle and less time.

The only thing I can see happening when it comes to nerfing things like JFs without first buffing how industry works in nullsec, is that we'll see a return of ye olde freighter convoy ops for a while, followed by a drop in desirability of living in "deep null", or a degradation of equipment from today's T2/T3 ships and equipment, and more towards T1 ships and modules.

This, of course, doesn't take into account the effect no local would have on the cost of actually having an alliance trying to sustain itself out there, and I'm not sure if 40m/hour would suffice to get enough people to volunteer for guard duty day in and day out, or if you'd still see people saying "you know what? **** this, I'm going back to empire to do L4s instead".

And, what would wars be without proper logistics to sustain them? Or, actually, that point isn't so much a problem anymore, since people's morale keeps breaking well before any strain is put upon logistics, so vOv I guess.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Frying Doom
#591 - 2012-05-29 23:38:32 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Tobiaz wrote:
I absolutely agree on the jump mechanics being the biggest cause of NAP-fest. Especially the low cost of them is what causes the biggest problem with excessive power-projection, fighting the neighbors of neighbors or messing with low-sec for lulz.

Combine a sov revamp so you can lose an undefended system in, say, 2 days, with a removal of jump drives or a hefty reduction in the distance of both jumpdrives and titan bridges, and I'm pretty certain you'd see some hilarious wars break out.

I will admit I agree with you there, some of the biggest problems are jump drives and the ease of moving forces to fighting spot battles on short notice. It should be harder to move troops around and goods for that matter via jump drive whether it be by cost which I am willing to fence sit on(this being due to my dislike of making things harder for small alliances but at the same time agreeing that large piles of cash have always made life easier for countries and corporations that have it) .

As to your other point on the lack of copying, researching manufacturing ect.. in Null Im sorry to say....I completely agree with you on this as well, null should be more self sufficient while still retaining goods required by empire.

The removal of local in Null would cause people to be more defensive of their own space and prevent massive over extension of areas as they would have to concentrate on Garrison work in defense of there space.

As I have previously said I have done overwatch on mining ops and that was in Hi-sec to deter gankers. Gankers and guerrilla raids would become more of an occurrence without local. Yes they would because only the most demented would sit stationary at a gate camp uncloaked and then bubblers would not be a problem for people moving through.

As so many have now agreed the removal of local in Null would be a step in the right direction. This is quite easily because Local actually makes things easier for for gate campers and pirate attacks, they require no work at all to see you are there.
Maybe local should just be renamed "Crutch for the Lazy"

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#592 - 2012-05-30 00:52:06 UTC
The game already has an atomized no-local area; Wormholes.

Tyring to do that with nullsec would really just ruin it. I for one like the idea of space that can be taken and held by large player empires. Its cool that Eve provides space to do that.

Taking away local and nerfing jump drives turns player made empires into wilderness. Wilderness that's harder to control and pays less than the existing wilderness of wormholes.

Does Eve really need more wilderness?
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#593 - 2012-05-30 00:53:35 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.

Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.

You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.

It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain about.

It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling gameplay. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?

The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.

The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing the hardcore aspect to the game.

The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.

To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions. With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer will never see them coming. It's win/win.

Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a 150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.

Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.

The dissenters video response

I was impressed by the conciseness conveyed. Lol


Yes. And it would also give us more screen-space to work with! \o/

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Frying Doom
#594 - 2012-05-30 01:10:41 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
The game already has an atomized no-local area; Wormholes.

Tyring to do that with nullsec would really just ruin it. I for one like the idea of space that can be taken and held by large player empires. Its cool that Eve provides space to do that.

Taking away local and nerfing jump drives turns player made empires into wilderness. Wilderness that's harder to control and pays less than the existing wilderness of wormholes.

Does Eve really need more wilderness?

Well yes but worm holes are alot more than just Null without local.

Richard Desturned wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
No local seems to work in WH based on the amount of "You want to remove local theres a place it already works...." replies people give so why shouldn't it work in 0.0???


There are very fundamental differences in the way one operates in wormholes and the way one operates in nullsec. Traveling to a particular w-space system requires you to find a wormhole to begin with. Traveling to a particular nullsec system only involves setting a destination. You also can't take an unlimited number of ships through a wormhole, you can't use jump drives in wormholes, you can't simply cloak up, scan and warp to a 100% signature like you would a 0.0 anomaly. Living in a wormhole is much more dependent on probing, and probes can be detected on dscan. These are not minor, insignificant differences - instant k-space style local in wormholes would be overpowered considering the amount of effort required to travel into and within a w-space system. Wormhole style local in 0.0 would make bombers and other cloaky ships far overpowered, on the other hand.


I have no problem with players being able to take and hold space but that is the key, making them use the space and actively defend it rather than just plopping up a structure in a system and paying for it but not really doing much in the system.

Removing local with all the other changes I propose will make it harder for Alliances to over extend there space while at the same time giving small alliances the ability to get a foothold in.

Removing local in Null its self will cause more guerrilla tactics and less gate camping and the like because who would sit stationary at a fixed point if you don't know what is coming or you don't have sufficient support.

Empire should have local. The empires can afford it. Alliances don't have access to all technology (Skill book creation, BPO creation ect..) So I would argue the technology for local would also be out of there grasp.

Null is Lawless space with player corporations fighting for supremacy but all it has become is boring. Wormholes are the least populated space per system followed by Null. Lo-sec has a higher population per system that Null.

Null is broken and needs fixing.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#595 - 2012-05-30 01:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
I've now read the entire thread:

Caliph Muhammed wrote:


1. Get rid of local, all secs. It fixes almost everything.

2. You would have to work to locate a target. You would have to work to avoid a target.

3. There would be risk in high sec. There would be risk in all secs.

4. Freighters could be caught during a war dec. Freighters could get through during a war dec.

5. You would still have Concord retaliation in high sec.

6. You could still be camped, though if you break the camp it would be harder to hunt you down. Certainly
no worse that what we have now but with compelling gameplay.

7. It would solve cloaky camps people complain about. It would give a point to cloaks of which people complain
about.

8. It would make neutral alts almost irrelevant. Though not 100%.

9. It would certainly make playing with one account a lot less of a disadvantage.

10. Sure you might lose a few alt account subs, but you would gain many more subs by having more compelling
gameplay.

11. What good is a scout profession when they're revealed as soon as they enter system?


12. The changes the expansion are bringing aren't going to revitalize low sec or null sec and its certainly not
going to promote or fuel war. Quite the opposite.

13. The devs and the playerbase talk a lot about EVE being hardcore, but as of yet i'm not really seeing
the hardcore aspect to the game. The game is a boring campfest. Removing local removes that to a large degree.


14. To my ultra Orthodox carebear players, uncle Caliphy isn't throwing you under the bus. The threats you worry
about occuring with this change would actually be resolvable by a merc corporation. If you are decced and you
hire a merc the merc cannot sneak up on the enemy with everything displayed for them. They may be able to make
your tormentors life a little more difficult but in most cases can't force a fight under those conditions.
With no local they could. If you are camped by a griefdec and you hire a reasonably sized merc to help you the griefer
will never see them coming. It's win/win.

15. Even null entry points would be camped far less. Lets see the thirty man bubble camp consistently do it when a

150 man roaming gang warps in on them and they never see it coming.

16. Local is holding EVE back. Period. Get rid of it and let EVE become great.




1. Opinion unsubstantiated by any supporting evidence (other than the OPs personal observation).

2. Locator agents, available to all (and adding your enemies/targets to your friends list makes knowing *when* to
look for them perfect intell - same as now).

3. There is already risk in High Sec, there is risk in all sec space. Check the killboards (but you already
know this). CCP tweeted (I think it was a tweet) numbers of ship blown up. Ships blow up everywhere. Again,
opinion presented as fact.

4. Freighters can already be caught, ffs OP's own killboard shows this:
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=16184208

5. Concord is irrelevant to the question of "Local".

6. What compelling gameplay? Having a cloaked alt observe the undock of whatever station
your enemy is in when your locator agent finds them? That's compelling? Or following people
through gates your cloaky alt shows you they're headed to is "harder to hunt them down" &
"compelling gameplay"? Explain (specifically) just *what* compelling game play you're talking about please...

7. The problem of cloaky camps is that they serve as cyno portals, not (just) the fact that they are there. Cloaks
have uses (a point) and sometimes griefing people is a valid use (Cloaks work just fine for us in WH's).

8. The change would, in fact, make neutral alts dam near a requirement for just about all travel in game.
It would also necessitate alts for gate watching a requirement (if you don't believe me, ask people who
live full time outside of hi-sec) a percentage of the population you just seem to dismiss when in fact they
are *just* as important to Eve-Online as you.

9. It would actually increase the disadvantage, because having scouts available means either losing another
pilot from your fleet (for those without alts) or someone having to dual box to replace them (decreasing their
effectivness at other jobs in the fleet) {i.e. - "alt"}

10. Overall, they would probably *gain* account subs (alts for EVERYONE) but again, what "compelling gameplay"
are you talking about?

11. I dunno, why don't you ask corps who use them, I would suggest Noir Mercenary Group, Agony Unleashed, RvB or
*anyone else*...

12. I don't believe "revitalizing low/null" was the point of this expansion, but I could be wrong. Also, "promoting
or fueling war" will have to be shown with time. I suspect that you're correct here, but so far (without evidence
pro or con) it's just your opinion.

13. Observation and opinion presented as fact, when in fact, quite a few people disagree with you, and do believe
that Eve is plenty hard to learn, and plenty hard to be good at. Even if "people" disagree with you or not, it is
still *just* your opinion, not a fact (as you stated).

14. I always support people hiring mercs. However, increasing risk/cost to carebears without any significant benefit
to them will not go over well. Remember, the carebear population *is* just as important (to a point) as anyone
else in game. Each individual player is just as important as any other player (yes, even you).

15. Alt eyes on the (static, unmovable) entry points to (every gate) in the system (again, promoting more neutral
alt-accounts) would totally *not* detect those roaming gangs... nope, nothing to see here... Static routes >
local chat.

16. This is your opinion stated as fact. You may (in fact) be wrong. Many people already believe Eve is great

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#596 - 2012-05-30 01:31:19 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

I have no problem with players being able to take and hold space but that is the key, making them use the space and actively defend it rather than just plopping up a structure in a system and paying for it but not really doing much in the system.


A lot of systems really have nothing in them worth doing. Few belts, few anoms, no rare materials. Some of the systems you think are empty might actually have some strategic importance, and we would rather you think they are empty and unused so that you don't go poking around in them.

Quote:

Removing local with all the other changes I propose will make it harder for Alliances to over extend there space while at the same time giving small alliances the ability to get a foothold in.


How so? Small groups will still be at a disadvantage, and now they will have no clue when a large fleet from an established nullsec alliance drops on them, or where it went after blapping them.

Quote:

Removing local in Null its self will cause more guerrilla tactics and less gate camping and the like because who would sit stationary at a fixed point if you don't know what is coming or you don't have sufficient support.


It would be a big buff to guerrilla tactics, and wouldn't do much to gate camps because gates are too big a choke point not to camp. Besides, campers would just have to fit a cloak, and then they could just be completely invulnerable and no one would know if they are just waiting or have left.

Quote:

Empire should have local. The empires can afford it. Alliances don't have access to all technology (Skill book creation, BPO creation ect..) So I would argue the technology for local would also be out of there grasp.

Null is Lawless space with player corporations fighting for supremacy but all it has become is boring. Wormholes are the least populated space per system followed by Null. Lo-sec has a higher population per system that Null.

Null is broken and needs fixing.


So your solution is to take aspects from the least populated area of Eve, and put them in the second least populated area, to boost population?

If you can't find anything fun to do in null, then go to low or w-space.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#597 - 2012-05-30 01:36:46 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Static, predictable routes, static predictable un-docks, static predictable pve content, and to a lesser degree, local. Delayed local only works in WH's because there, the PVE content is always dynamic, there are *no* predictable ways in and out, and "gate camp" bookmarks only work while *that* wormhole is alive... Not to mention there are no "tactical bookmarks" no "sniper bookmarks" all the things that come with static travel lanes.


there's also the whole cyno thing

Didn't mean to gloss that over, for sure!

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Frying Doom
#598 - 2012-05-30 02:23:51 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
A lot of systems really have nothing in them worth doing. Few belts, few anoms, no rare materials. Some of the systems you think are empty might actually have some strategic importance, and we would rather you think they are empty and unused so that you don't go poking around in them.

So your agreeing with my points from the other post
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1377678#post1377678
That sovereignty systems should require activity in order to hold on to the system, allowing smaller alliances to move into the useless systems..

Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
How so? Small groups will still be at a disadvantage, and now they will have no clue when a large fleet from an established nullsec alliance drops on them, or where it went after blapping them.

Please see https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1377678#post1377678

Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
It would be a big buff to guerrilla tactics, and wouldn't do much to gate camps because gates are too big a choke point not to camp. Besides, campers would just have to fit a cloak, and then they could just be completely invulnerable and no one would know if they are just waiting or have left.

People might still camp them but they would be alot easier targets to counter attack and if they are cloaked bubbles are less of a problem as they could not use bubblers.

Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
So your solution is to take aspects from the least populated area of Eve, and put them in the second least populated area, to boost population?

Wormholes are not just empty because of not having a local channel as has been stated repeatedly there is alot more involved to moving to a wormhole than just loosing local. That argument is like saying that Jita should be moved to a wormhole because local is useless there. Its just rubbish.

Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
If you can't find anything fun to do in null, then go to low or w-space.

Oh I did.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#599 - 2012-05-30 02:44:41 UTC
There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Frying Doom
#600 - 2012-05-30 02:55:16 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
There's already a whole 2,500 0.0 systems with delayed local where jump drives do not work.

So why haven't you claimed sov in them yet?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!