EVE General Discussion

I agree. I remember life before jump bridging; moving around was not as fun but we still moved things around.. The only difference is it took a much larger group to move things in a time frame.. so if anything nerfing J-bridges will do the opposite of what many people think removing them would do. You would be mandating a larger group.

Says legendary "constructive poster", marlona sky.

Maybe if people stop talking about things they're utterly clueless of, other people won't have to spend ten pages disabusing them of their ridiculous opinions

Well I for one enjoy watching Forum PvP.

I'm sorry; your post didn't make it clear that what you wanted was anything other than more disparity between null and high sec... which some have repeatedly said should be accomplished by nerfing high sec. Even if you expect to achieve your stated goal by adding more valueable stuff to null sec and not high sec how should I not interprete this is a backhanded nerf for high sec .. especially when you admit that in many cases the risk is as great or greater in high sec?

See, this is where you're wrong. Hisec gets risky if you're a hulk miner who refuses to fit a tank while AFK mining during Hulkageddon, it gets risky if you're autopiloting a pimped out ship, it gets risky if you're flying a hauler with hundreds of millions of ISK in cargo. In nullsec, an attacker has no need to be as selective. Killing you will not cost them their ship, tanking your Hulk doesn't make a difference because you shouldn't be in a position to need a tank anyway (not that it'll help you) and let's not forget that losing your space means losing access to all of your assets in said space.

It's not. The risk is highsec is so low that players get ridiculously complacent and refuse to take any safety precautions. That is the only 'risk' in highsec.

The way I see it overall is how everyone wants to solve the problem but simply refuse accepting any of the solutions that would actually solve said problems.

I've seen a magnitude of ideas that would make EVE a lot more fun than it already is and probably also improve (not solve entirely, cause the problem at hand is due to quite a few factors IMO) the whole flow of player movement and migration all over.

Some of the problems at hand that I can think of which ALL contribute to why things are the way they are is this:


1. Gates/gatecamps - fixed entry and fixed exit. Has it's good points, but generally the bad points are happily ignored by most. Quite a big part of the problem at hand. The whole jumping around also contributes quite a bit to the problem as it totally eliminates the need for several strategic elements. Free entry/fixed exit would be a great compromise.

2. Resource distribution in the game. Redistribution in such a way that it would take into account an EVE without jump capabilities (Titans and such excluded of course), as logistics is yet another part of the problem at hand.

3. Intel, stealth and a flawed/outdated "detection" system in EVE overall. The naval/submarine suggestion made by whoever it now was quite a while ago (huge creds to you) would by itself already allow for the solving of several other problems, the main one being the gate issue.

4. Going back to logistics - and why jump freighters etc is a problem: it eliminates supply chains, strategic locations, alliance size weakness and so on. If we take Goonies or any of the other huge alliances out there: the strategy of zerging in itself is perfectly fine and valid - just that: it hardly seems to come with the disadvantages that it should have.


These are probably most of the major issues that are a part of the whole problem. There is no single solution. If people really want to see more people in low- and nullsec then they better start looking and accepting the core issues and be willing to actually change them.

Whining about "No spaceships to pewpew in my turf! CCP, force players to come and play with me!" and at the same time objecting to any fixes to the core issues will not yield you anything.

The insults and personal attacks come after people refuse to be disabused of their uninformed opinions, particularly when they start with "it should be like x" instead of "is there a reason it's not like x?".

The ultimate point is that CCP already know, in theory, what needs to be done, from talking with people who actually know wtf they're talking about. The only real issues are implementation and resource allocation, which are largely outside of even the CSM's input, and definitely outside of the influence of the hoi polloi.

As if it hasn't been explained, multiple times in this thread alone.