These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

You CANT Nerf HighSec!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2021 - 2013-01-03 09:26:01 UTC
More troll posts and spam has been removed from this thread.

Forum Rules wrote:


7. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is the word used to describe a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting the players. Posts of this nature are disruptive and do not contribute to the sense of community we want for our forums.

12. Spamming, bumping and pyramid quoting are prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or text or nonsensical posts that have no substance and are often designed to annoy other forum users. This includes “first” and “go back to another game” posts. Bumping posts in order to keep them near the top of the list is also prohibited. Petitions or "/signed" posts are a version of bumping and likewise are not permitted. Pyramid quoting is a response to a forum thread that contains the quotes of four or more previous posters, sometimes with additional spaces added unnecessarily. Posts of this nature are not conducive to community spirit and are unwelcome.



Please stay on topic and refrain from derailing threads with troll posts, thank you - ISD Type40.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#2022 - 2013-01-03 10:41:57 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

You're missing her point. It's not about usage vs. defense, she is talking about social interaction evolving beyond anything CCP can build mechanically. It makes zero difference whether or not you defend the space or use the space, that is not what limits you to 5%. If 12 Alliances each managed to hold and use 5% of 0.0 space, but were in a coalition together, you now have a social entity that owns 60% of EVE's nullsec territory. CCP cannot stop that diplomatic relationship from forming. Which is just a fancier way of saying numerical limits on sovereignty are completely useless and are a waste of time to discuss.


And you are all missing mine.

There were functional diminishing returns in the past, called "incentives to murder each other", providing a ceaseless conflict kept alliances more or less in check even if there were massive blueing around.

After dominion the whole sov war sort of rot out, bringing to the current situation.

EvE has not been *always* that stagnant, there's a "before" and an "after" so we know EvE has not to be necessarily to be like it's now.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Frying Doom
#2023 - 2013-01-03 10:45:24 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

You're missing her point. It's not about usage vs. defense, she is talking about social interaction evolving beyond anything CCP can build mechanically. It makes zero difference whether or not you defend the space or use the space, that is not what limits you to 5%. If 12 Alliances each managed to hold and use 5% of 0.0 space, but were in a coalition together, you now have a social entity that owns 60% of EVE's nullsec territory. CCP cannot stop that diplomatic relationship from forming. Which is just a fancier way of saying numerical limits on sovereignty are completely useless and are a waste of time to discuss.


And you are all missing mine.

There were functional diminishing returns in the past, called "incentives to murder each other", providing a ceaseless conflict kept alliances more or less in check even if there were massive blueing around.

After dominion the whole sov war sort of rot out, bringing to the current situation.

EvE has not been *always* that stagnant, there's a "before" and an "after" so we know EvE has not to be necessarily to be like it's now.

Never having experience Null before Dominion could you elaborate on these "incentives to murder each other"?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2024 - 2013-01-03 10:56:28 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Building an item and then refining it down should never yield the same amount of minerals/components as it took to create it. It should always, always be less.

Does anyone else agree?


Maybe sorta kinda but no not really. I can see where you're coming from but in practice there's not really a practical difference between 100% refine and 99.5% refine so why get bent out of shape about it?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2025 - 2013-01-03 11:00:14 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

You're missing her point. It's not about usage vs. defense, she is talking about social interaction evolving beyond anything CCP can build mechanically. It makes zero difference whether or not you defend the space or use the space, that is not what limits you to 5%. If 12 Alliances each managed to hold and use 5% of 0.0 space, but were in a coalition together, you now have a social entity that owns 60% of EVE's nullsec territory. CCP cannot stop that diplomatic relationship from forming. Which is just a fancier way of saying numerical limits on sovereignty are completely useless and are a waste of time to discuss.


And you are all missing mine.

There were functional diminishing returns in the past, called "incentives to murder each other", providing a ceaseless conflict kept alliances more or less in check even if there were massive blueing around.

After dominion the whole sov war sort of rot out, bringing to the current situation.

EvE has not been *always* that stagnant, there's a "before" and an "after" so we know EvE has not to be necessarily to be like it's now.

Never having experience Null before Dominion could you elaborate on these "incentives to murder each other"?


Dominion wasn't what changed the incentives; invention was. Well, invention and jump freighters, I guess.

Before invention, T2 BPOs were the T2 construction bottleneck, and high end moons were in the "nice little earner but nothing amazing" category. After the BPO bottleneck was removed, moongoo became the limiting factor. CCP utterly borked the Moongoo rebalance and actually made it worse (in the face of closely documented analysis of exactly how and why it would be worse, but this was in their "lolplayers" period), leading to the current situation we have now.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Frying Doom
#2026 - 2013-01-03 11:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

You're missing her point. It's not about usage vs. defense, she is talking about social interaction evolving beyond anything CCP can build mechanically. It makes zero difference whether or not you defend the space or use the space, that is not what limits you to 5%. If 12 Alliances each managed to hold and use 5% of 0.0 space, but were in a coalition together, you now have a social entity that owns 60% of EVE's nullsec territory. CCP cannot stop that diplomatic relationship from forming. Which is just a fancier way of saying numerical limits on sovereignty are completely useless and are a waste of time to discuss.


And you are all missing mine.

There were functional diminishing returns in the past, called "incentives to murder each other", providing a ceaseless conflict kept alliances more or less in check even if there were massive blueing around.

After dominion the whole sov war sort of rot out, bringing to the current situation.

EvE has not been *always* that stagnant, there's a "before" and an "after" so we know EvE has not to be necessarily to be like it's now.

Never having experience Null before Dominion could you elaborate on these "incentives to murder each other"?


Dominion wasn't what changed the incentives; invention was. Well, invention and jump freighters, I guess.

Before invention, T2 BPOs were the T2 construction bottleneck, and high end moons were in the "nice little earner but nothing amazing" category. After the BPO bottleneck was removed, moongoo became the limiting factor. CCP utterly borked the Moongoo rebalance and actually made it worse (in the face of closely documented analysis of exactly how and why it would be worse, but this was in their "lolplayers" period), leading to the current situation we have now.


So it is not a past we can or want to reconstruct so we are better to move towards something that would cause drama like industrialization of Null and system usage. Allowing lots of juicy targets to kill.

Sorry was drooling while I typed that Lol

I may be a carebear but the thought of all those mining ships in Null makes me want to go splat some. Well those and haulers and ratters too.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#2027 - 2013-01-03 11:18:40 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So it is not a past we can or want to reconstruct so we are better to move towards something that would cause drama like industrialization of Null and system usage. Allowing lots of juicy targets to kill.

Sorry was drooling while I typed that Lol

I may be a carebear but the thought of all those mining ships in Null makes me want to go splat some. Well those and haulers and ratters too.


There is a post in the first 2 GD pages made by a goon or "symphatizant" explaining what happened (including more structures bashing) and so on. I wanted to link it but now it's lunch time so I don't have time. Then I have to work (only 1 day a month but it's right today Sad) and by then the post will be at page 9000.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2028 - 2013-01-03 11:28:37 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So it is not a past we can or want to reconstruct so we are better to move towards something that would cause drama like industrialization of Null and system usage. Allowing lots of juicy targets to kill.

Sorry was drooling while I typed that Lol

I may be a carebear but the thought of all those mining ships in Null makes me want to go splat some. Well those and haulers and ratters too.


There is a post in the first 2 GD pages made by a goon or "symphatizant" explaining what happened (including more structures bashing) and so on. I wanted to link it but now it's lunch time so I don't have time. Then I have to work (only 1 day a month but it's right today Sad) and by then the post will be at page 9000.

i will wait anyway. This is really interesting story.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2029 - 2013-01-03 12:06:50 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

You're missing her point. It's not about usage vs. defense, she is talking about social interaction evolving beyond anything CCP can build mechanically. It makes zero difference whether or not you defend the space or use the space, that is not what limits you to 5%. If 12 Alliances each managed to hold and use 5% of 0.0 space, but were in a coalition together, you now have a social entity that owns 60% of EVE's nullsec territory. CCP cannot stop that diplomatic relationship from forming. Which is just a fancier way of saying numerical limits on sovereignty are completely useless and are a waste of time to discuss.


And you are all missing mine.

There were functional diminishing returns in the past, called "incentives to murder each other", providing a ceaseless conflict kept alliances more or less in check even if there were massive blueing around.

After dominion the whole sov war sort of rot out, bringing to the current situation.

EvE has not been *always* that stagnant, there's a "before" and an "after" so we know EvE has not to be necessarily to be like it's now.

Never having experience Null before Dominion could you elaborate on these "incentives to murder each other"?


Dominion wasn't what changed the incentives; invention was. Well, invention and jump freighters, I guess.

Before invention, T2 BPOs were the T2 construction bottleneck, and high end moons were in the "nice little earner but nothing amazing" category. After the BPO bottleneck was removed, moongoo became the limiting factor. CCP utterly borked the Moongoo rebalance and actually made it worse (in the face of closely documented analysis of exactly how and why it would be worse, but this was in their "lolplayers" period), leading to the current situation we have now.


So it is not a past we can or want to reconstruct so we are better to move towards something that would cause drama like industrialization of Null and system usage. Allowing lots of juicy targets to kill.


Basically yes. That's what all the noise about "usage based sov" and generating alliance income through member activity is about.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#2030 - 2013-01-03 15:08:04 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

If scalable content is added to nullsec, even stricter limits than 5% max sovereignty may be necessary to maintain any reasonable level of organizational balance.

But that's assuming CCP ever decided they are willing to open that can of worms at all. Limited nullsec content with unlimited sov is frankly easier to manage for them.

How does that make any sense?

Nullsec is supposed to be a battlefield.

A place where empires are carved out and won or lost.

If you can make an empire the likes of highsec in nullsec, how much space do you actually need?

What is your incentive to fight your nieghbor if 2 or 3 constellations provides everything a thousand player alliance needs?

The point of nullsec being so limited is to give people a reason to try to claim more territory.

How can you even be in a nullsec alliance and be ignorant of that?

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2031 - 2013-01-03 16:50:26 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Building an item and then refining it down should never yield the same amount of minerals/components as it took to create it. It should always, always be less.

Does anyone else agree?


Maybe sorta kinda but no not really. I can see where you're coming from but in practice there's not really a practical difference between 100% refine and 99.5% refine so why get bent out of shape about it?

99.5%?? I was thinking along the lines of 80% max. It just does not make any sense that someone could build something, melt it back down and have the exact same materials as before.
Ghazu
#2032 - 2013-01-03 16:57:17 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

If scalable content is added to nullsec, even stricter limits than 5% max sovereignty may be necessary to maintain any reasonable level of organizational balance.

But that's assuming CCP ever decided they are willing to open that can of worms at all. Limited nullsec content with unlimited sov is frankly easier to manage for them.

How does that make any sense?

Nullsec is supposed to be a battlefield.

A place where empires are carved out and won or lost.

If you can make an empire the likes of highsec in nullsec, how much space do you actually need?

What is your incentive to fight your nieghbor if 2 or 3 constellations provides everything a thousand player alliance needs?

The point of nullsec being so limited is to give people a reason to try to claim more territory.

How can you even be in a nullsec alliance and be ignorant of that?

Hey let's fight over a bunch of useless systems and pay sov fees for inferior stations than highsec but that's just a-ok in your little highsec mind.

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2033 - 2013-01-03 17:15:51 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

If scalable content is added to nullsec, even stricter limits than 5% max sovereignty may be necessary to maintain any reasonable level of organizational balance.

But that's assuming CCP ever decided they are willing to open that can of worms at all. Limited nullsec content with unlimited sov is frankly easier to manage for them.

How does that make any sense?

Nullsec is supposed to be a battlefield.

A place where empires are carved out...


Yeah about those "empires"... Roll

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2034 - 2013-01-03 17:16:45 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Building an item and then refining it down should never yield the same amount of minerals/components as it took to create it. It should always, always be less.

Does anyone else agree?


Maybe sorta kinda but no not really. I can see where you're coming from but in practice there's not really a practical difference between 100% refine and 99.5% refine so why get bent out of shape about it?

99.5%?? I was thinking along the lines of 80% max. It just does not make any sense that someone could build something, melt it back down and have the exact same materials as before.


Of course it does.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2035 - 2013-01-03 17:18:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
What, the refinery pixie takes 200,000 tons of metal every time a ship gets melted down? You have difficulty believing that a technology that can assemble a compacted starship in a few seconds or create one from scratch in a few hours can achieve near perfect recycling?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#2036 - 2013-01-03 17:20:07 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
99.5%?? I was thinking along the lines of 80% max. It just does not make any sense that someone could build something, melt it back down and have the exact same materials as before.

Why?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#2037 - 2013-01-03 17:37:42 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

If scalable content is added to nullsec, even stricter limits than 5% max sovereignty may be necessary to maintain any reasonable level of organizational balance.

But that's assuming CCP ever decided they are willing to open that can of worms at all. Limited nullsec content with unlimited sov is frankly easier to manage for them.

How does that make any sense?

Nullsec is supposed to be a battlefield.

A place where empires are carved out...


Yeah about those "empires"... Roll

Well, that's a clear point of discussion.

I played in another game with actual sovereignty rules and a limited space to employ them in, one of the benefits sovereignty gave was the ability to tax people for doing business in your area.

There were no hard limits, but at the same time you couldn't exclude people from using your territory, so an invasion force could be mustered at your very doorstep.

There were quiet periods, but for the most part it proved to be a rather dynamic system, because it made challenging sovereignty relatively easy.

But the important part of it was the "no exclusion" rule. You could shoot people on their way in and out, you could raise taxes (within limits, but they could get quite high) and reimburse your allies, you could do all sorts of nasty and vicious things if you chose, but there was no way to absolutely bar someone from using the facilities in your territory.

This game had no highsec equivalent because the unlimited access area was everywhere.

EvE nullsec has one feature this other game didn't have: you can bar people from using your facilities. You can keep reds, and even neutrals, from docking at your stations.

Do away with that one rule and we don't need NPC stations as the source of scalable content anymore, and we could even (*gasp*) possibly do away with highsec.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2038 - 2013-01-03 17:42:52 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Well, that's a clear point of discussion.

I played in another game with actual sovereignty rules and a limited space to employ them in, one of the benefits sovereignty gave was the ability to tax people for doing business in your area.

There were no hard limits, but at the same time you couldn't exclude people from using your territory, so an invasion force could be mustered at your very doorstep.

There were quiet periods, but for the most part it proved to be a rather dynamic system, because it made challenging sovereignty relatively easy.

But the important part of it was the "no exclusion" rule. You could shoot people on their way in and out, you could raise taxes (within limits, but they could get quite high) and reimburse your allies, you could do all sorts of nasty and vicious things if you chose, but there was no way to absolutely bar someone from using the facilities in your territory.

This game had no highsec equivalent because the unlimited access area was everywhere.

EvE nullsec has one feature this other game didn't have: you can bar people from using your facilities. You can keep reds, and even neutrals, from docking at your stations.

Do away with that one rule and we don't need NPC stations as the source of scalable content anymore, and we could even (*gasp*) possibly do away with highsec.


And what game was that?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#2039 - 2013-01-03 17:46:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Nullsec is supposed to be a battlefield.

A place where empires are carved out...

Yeah about those "empires"... Roll

Nerf those empires. Make smaller better.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#2040 - 2013-01-03 18:10:38 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

And what game was that?

Not saying, because I know you will come back with "but that game is totally different from EvE", which is exactly my point.

Let's just say that it was an "always on PvP" game that allowed for a mix of play styles but had some stylistic and philosophical quirks that have led to it not being all that popular these days (including with me).

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs