Jita Park Speakers Corner

I was referring to your question on The Mittani ... the last sentence of the paragraph I quoted.

Didn't want to answer, as we're going to personalities. Still, I do mine, I mine rocks - thus cant be afk, I use Mack and T1 strips, and I enjoy it. But you missed the crucial point in your interrogation: I mine in a fleet, cause if you dont - you're doing it wrong.

Yet the reason of my post is to highlight the issue with fleet mining. We dont have a tool to estimate participation of each member. While some folks mine purely for fun and donate the mined ore for corp needs, others (including new members, first of all!) make it for ISK. It would be really nice to give them a fair share of total mined ore. Could you, CSM comrades, bring it to devs attention? I suppose this could be important for social adaptation of new members.

As an idea of technical implementation, it could be logs of items that people put (and take) to/from Orca fleet hangar. These logs should be accessible via API. Then I hope we could forge an application, that calculates cubic meters mined by a specific player, and thus his share.

Structure Grind
Can I get a further explanation of “The structure Grind”?

I personally found the way the current grind is made, A blob of Dreads can kill anything in under 5 min
jump to the next object and blow the next item in a matter of minutes.
Then on the other hand for the small alliance to go after a small weak POS it takes 30 mins with 4 dreads.

Rewarding Blobbing with short easy grinds and punishing small group Structure shoots with increasingly long boring grinds.

I am afraid that “simply removing the grind” will turn eve into those flavor of the month mmo where content is just spoon fed, or may end up with a flip flop of Sovereignty Like in the old days

I am wondering if hate :towards a grind” is a more of a case an extreme number of people required to grind. From my experience in as a Null sec miner and structure repairer. A hand full of people working on a grind is tolerable, but when you get a group over 10 players (20+ accounts) an activity over 30 mins with out Major Dynamic action, the experience turns sour.

Would switching the structure shoots to requiring different play styles to be used in combo to provide an easier end result, where simple blobbing 1 activity results little reward beyond the first few ships. And that there is a decreasing returns on effect when more people are piled on attacking one structure vs splitting the group and attacking several structures simultaneously.

Brainstorming.....

Phase 1 dropping an exposed DCU much like current, except Defender of the systems. disrupted/destroy the DCU with ongoing damage over a period of time. This time can be shorten by several factors, Damage, Damage type, Special Module application on the DCU. A dreadknot or two. But having more than 20 people working on Destroying the DCU will have little effect on speed up the process.
Phase 2 DCU Drop Successful
Phase 2 Much like current timer before the Ihub comes out susceptible to attack.
(The Aggressor towards the sovereignty)
Starts a Sustained Damage over time, a base 1 dread two hours shoot can be reduced to 20 mins seeking a perfect balance Damage, Damage type, Special Module application on the DCU and A DreadKnot or 5.

Perfect Balance=
Ship with Shield Destabalizer stops Structure Natural Regen
Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Dreads)
Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80%
Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50%
Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20%
Dread Knot Sized Weapons for ship 5 Does 5%
Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Battles Ship size weapons)
Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Dread Damage requirement)
Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Dread Damage requirement)
Battle Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Dread Damage requirement)
Etc
Cruiser ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Cruiser Ship size weapons)
Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Larger Ship damage requirement)
Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement)
Cruiser Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement)
etc
Frigate ship Sized Weapons for ship 1 Does 100% Effect requiring to Cover a Set Damage over time to reduce the timing metre (set aside for Frigate Ship size weapons)
Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 2 Does 80% (20% spill over to Larger Ship damage requirement)
Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 3 Does 50% (50% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement)
Frigate Ship Sized Weapons for ship 4 Does 20% (80% spill over to Larger Ship Damage requirement)
etc
Placing Electronic warfare modules of each type will also reduce the sustained Damage over time duration, requiring the used of the Electronic warfare ships to be deployed for best effect.

So essentially having more than 30 people doing the structure grind won't produce additional effect.
Leaving those other people of the alliance to guard or suppress the the opponent will the task is complete.
For large scale conquest an invading force would have to, at the same time, take several groups of 30 to take out I hubs, working at the same time in multiple systems to conquest quickly though a campaign. On the other hand this opens up fights for the opponent who will try to save a few Ihub with hit and run attacks while the Conquering Alliance must shut down these hit and run attacks.


In the course of a night a Structure shoot crew 30 may end up hitting mayby... 2 hubs taking 2 hours in total (30mins involved in shooting for each site). Feeling tension during the entire time because they don't have the Blob to protect them as the blob is protecting 10 other location, (each having their own structure shoots) from attack from other hit and run defenders.
On the other hand the Defender can blob, being able to save a few structures but loosing others because there were taken over by a handful of players left uncontested.


(oh.... I hope that brainstorming made sense)

Too complex, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Oh you changed your post, I liked the frail and delicate one

Edit: In all honesty they are probably starting work on the summit notes with it being only a couple of weeks away

Keep on trolling, stanny boy. All you are doing is marginalizing yourself and that garbage blog of your's. Now that is poetic justice.

I just want to throw this out there... consider what difference it would make if the ideal social entity in nullsec was about 400 people strong instead of thousands strong. If an alliance tended to fall apart out of sheer unweildly size. Consider as well if when an alliance fell apart that it's members were free to do as they will, politically, without losing assets such as real estate an such. What if, instead of an increased focus on entrenching and empowering incumbent alliances, incentives were given to their member corps to routinely backstab their greedy overlords? (Edit: without giving one disgruntled director the power to sabotage the entire group by unilaterally disbanding it. )

I would propose that such a scenario would promote vast amounts of nullsec content, as well as interesting, subscription increasing stories.

Edit: an alliance should be just that... an alliance of corps, a tool for corps to cooperate. There should be no mechanics that require an alliance (I. E. sov) but just be a tool for cooperation (via pos, pi, channels, contracts, etc. ) More akin to higher level standings than a full blown entity. A more volatile nullsec means more things to actually do and more reasons to do them.

me too...

I like a lot of the ideas they proposed, but I see a serious issue with the attitude towards devaluing high sec in favor of forcing people into null.

Even after two years of having characters subscribed I still don't understand why some people think everyone should have to go to null sec in order have an effective income stream.

I have no problems with null sec being more valuable and in fact I think the best way to attract subscribers into null is to ensure it stays the richest segment of the game. The CSM mention risk vs. reward but how much risk is truly in null sec for the huge alliances? You can't sit there and tell me someone who's 10 systems deep has to worry about getting ganked or attacked.

Rather than continue with pushing people out of high sec, which will more than likely just push them out of the game, the CSM should instead work on ways to get more population overall. Make PVE more fun and interesting. Make high sec safer for people that prefer PVE instead of PVP. At the same time make null sec more appealing to small alliances and new groups trying to carve out a niche.

The biggest detractor keeping me out of null sec is the fact I don't want to join a zerg force of thousands and be another mindless, buzzing drone following the queens orders. I want to be in a small group where I can make a difference.

I think the solution has something to do with making some systems in null incredibly difficult to attack, some which offer good rewards for those willing to fight for them, and some that are just used for large scale fights. Having some kind of home system which a small alliance can defend, resource systems with high returns but easy to attack, and having travel routes linking them all together would be a good way to go. Travel routes for skirmishes, resource systems for constant fighting, home systems which are pretty much immune as long as there are defenders to protect.

That puts some real risk vs. reward into null sec while still making Eve appealing to the people who prefer PVE.

It is pretty sad to see that CCP is content to let this post just quietly die. Even sadder is the fact that the subscribers are complacent enough to let it happen.