These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Let the hammer fall

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-12-25 18:21:06 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

You gusy never ***** about empty high sec systems, which there are a lot of.



What game are you playing... There is no such thing as an empty highsec system, there might be systems that are less populated, but there is ALWAYS someone online in any given system in highsec. Always.

The hell there isn't.

A system with a dozen miners clearing out the one or two belts isn't exactly "utilized" to any extent.
And there are many high sec systems that have only a couple of belts and no worthwhile mission agents, that very few people ever actually go into.

I know, because I was mining in those systems.

They're just as usefull as most of the null sytems, and for the exact same reason. Lack of useable content.
Zenethalos
Doomheim
#42 - 2012-12-25 18:22:20 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Zenethalos wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
PS: CCP should ban anyone that makes a post about how null needs to be fixed when they post with a character with no null history.


If only.

I'm not longer a residence of 0.0 with such a reduced play time so I reside in empire FW hoping to see some awesome changes to the sov mechanic in the future.

The underlying cause of all of this is CCP. They created mechanics that facilitate this current age of coalitions with no incentive not to de-homogenize the major players alliances.

The diplomacy stuff is fine, it's working as intended.

CCP gave us the ability to build corporatins with a few thousand members, and then ally those corps with other several thousand strong corporations.

...


Low sec is available for everyone who doesn't want to be involved in emprie bulding, but still want the small gang/ holding, and pvp experience.



I agree. I love the fact that I can pile into a system with 800+ other people shooting the poop out of each other. I appreciate the fact that CCP took the time to implement the hardware to facilitate this and then followed up with some TiDi to help the flow.

The issue I have with this is that I believe that myself and many people in smaller organizations or are now glimpsing threw the looking glass at the current situation want mechanics that favor creating coalitions out of necessity not out of convenience. Once the necessity is gone the mechanics would create an incentive to breaking the coalition and get people back to shooting each other. At the current it seems like the closest we have and 0.0 NIP's to stave off the boredom.

I could be mistaken though, this is just my opinion based on my experiences and I appreciate the fact that everyone may/will have differing opinions and views on the subject.
Max Doobie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-12-25 18:30:38 UTC


NUllsec main here...and even I have to admit, the whole "Sea of Blues" thing is corny as hell.

Null should be complete and utter chaos.

That's why I have to agree with the Highseccers who laugh at Nullseccers who complain about Risk VS Reward.

I feel safer in null sec than in low or high,and thats the damned truth.


...Just sayin. Null could be a lot better. All of this buddy buddy crap is lame.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#44 - 2012-12-25 18:34:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Zenethalos wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Zenethalos wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
PS: CCP should ban anyone that makes a post about how null needs to be fixed when they post with a character with no null history.


If only.

I'm not longer a residence of 0.0 with such a reduced play time so I reside in empire FW hoping to see some awesome changes to the sov mechanic in the future.

The underlying cause of all of this is CCP. They created mechanics that facilitate this current age of coalitions with no incentive not to de-homogenize the major players alliances.

The diplomacy stuff is fine, it's working as intended.

CCP gave us the ability to build corporatins with a few thousand members, and then ally those corps with other several thousand strong corporations.

...


Low sec is available for everyone who doesn't want to be involved in emprie bulding, but still want the small gang/ holding, and pvp experience.



I agree. I love the fact that I can pile into a system with 800+ other people shooting the poop out of each other. I appreciate the fact that CCP took the time to implement the hardware to facilitate this and then followed up with some TiDi to help the flow.

The issue I have with this is that I believe that myself and many people in smaller organizations or are now glimpsing threw the looking glass at the current situation want mechanics that favor creating coalitions out of necessity not out of convenience. Once the necessity is gone the mechanics would create an incentive to breaking the coalition and get people back to shooting each other. At the current it seems like the closest we have and 0.0 NIP's to stave off the boredom.

I could be mistaken though, this is just my opinion based on my experiences and I appreciate the fact that everyone may/will have differing opinions and views on the subject.

Diplomacy isn't a mechanic that can be coded.

Small groups can get into null, you just use the tools at yoru disposal. If you lack the tool that allows you to use agressiion, you use the one for diplomacy.

The coalitions aren't formed out of neccesity.
It has nothing to do with "needing" to form a coalition.
It's the emergent part of the game that happesn when you give players the tools to build an empire through might or diplomacy.

It's not something that needs to be "fixed", nor is it something that ever can.

Asking CCP to "fix" the coalitions is as useful as asking them make the sky green and grass blue. Why don't we ask CCP to make cats act like dogs and dogs like ducks. I mean if we're going to ask CCP to do impossible things, why not at least ask them to do something that's interesting.


You can not make people not work together.
CCP can go in and disband all the alliances and remove the tools that allow us to set who is an ally and who is not. -We'll pretend that most people won't just quit, or that that woudln't be just stupid-. Everyone would still create alliances and coalitions.

The tools don't make us do this, it's our CHOICE.

10s of thousands of people are working together, something you will not see in any other MMO, it is wholey unique to EVE.
And some people keep telling CCP to stop letting us do that.

That is absolutely stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Nylith Empyreal
Sutar Rein
#45 - 2012-12-25 18:37:17 UTC
It grows, expands, explodes.


Hopefully...

Who's the more foolish the fool or the fool who replies to him?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-12-25 18:40:01 UTC
Max Doobie wrote:


NUllsec main here...and even I have to admit, the whole "Sea of Blues" thing is corny as hell.

Null should be complete and utter chaos.

That's why I have to agree with the Highseccers who laugh at Nullseccers who complain about Risk VS Reward.

I feel safer in null sec than in low or high,and thats the damned truth.


...Just sayin. Null could be a lot better. All of this buddy buddy crap is lame.

I disagree.

it should be entirely based upon the actions of the players. CCP shoudl not enforce any kind of state on null. They give us the tools, and we use them to build our empires.

The "sea of blue" is no different then if all the NPC empires made peace.

Null sec is the player run version of high sec.
The entire point behind null is for US to decide it's state; not CCP.


Low sec is a warzone. It's where the 4 NPC empires are fighting over sov. Low sec is intended as the place of continual chaos through developer controlled state. The players only get to decide which empire the systems belong to, but don't get to control them.

There will be another war in null, and one day there will be likely a rather large one.
Untill then, anyone that wants a place of 'continual chaos" has the option to go to low, or shoot blues.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#47 - 2012-12-25 18:44:31 UTC
Ya, idk why that needs constant repeating. Lowsec is the wild west. Nullsec is like antiquity.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Max Doobie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-12-25 18:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Doobie
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Max Doobie wrote:


NUllsec main here...and even I have to admit, the whole "Sea of Blues" thing is corny as hell.

Null should be complete and utter chaos.

That's why I have to agree with the Highseccers who laugh at Nullseccers who complain about Risk VS Reward.

I feel safer in null sec than in low or high,and thats the damned truth.


...Just sayin. Null could be a lot better. All of this buddy buddy crap is lame.

I disagree.

it should be entirely based upon the actions of the players. CCP shoudl not enforce any kind of state on null. They give us the tools, and we use them to build our empires.

The "sea of blue" is no different then if all the NPC empires made peace.

Null sec is the player run version of high sec.
The entire point behind null is for US to decide it's state; not CCP.


Low sec is a warzone. It's where the 4 NPC empires are fighting over sov. Low sec is intended as the place of continual chaos through developer controlled state. The players only get to decide which empire the systems belong to, but don't get to control them.

There will be another war in null, and one day there will be likely a rather large one.
Untill then, anyone that wants a place of 'continual chaos" has the option to go to low, or shoot blues.



All I'm saying is there should be more INCENTIVE for chaos, not for them to directly break up the coalitions. Just put the bowl of candy out there. Right now there is only incentive to form coalitions. There is no incentive for going rogue and going against the grain. It's All Bureaucratic bs.

Yes I want chaos. I want drama. I want betrayal. I want blood and guts. I want action. I want Medieval Europe.,,,without the Feudalism...that's another issue I have with null. A handful of nerds have all the say and that handful of nerds are best buddies so this "Kumbaya" crap starts from the top. Splintering is not an option because the chance of a new Alliance not being blobbed is close to nil. Either that or they join a coalition and the Blue circle jerk continues.

I love my guys in Test but the fact remains, to me, Null is the SAFEST space in EVE, and that my friend is Ridonkulous.

You should FEAR going into null sec. It's the lawless land. Your heart should pound every time you even THINK about crossing that line. Most of us? Man, my heart pounds harder when I'm in Empire.
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-12-25 18:59:16 UTC
Zenethalos wrote:
(...)

I'm not longer a residence of 0.0 with such a reduced play time so I reside in empire FW hoping to see some awesome changes to the sov mechanic in the future.

The underlying cause of all of this is CCP. They created mechanics that facilitate this current age of coalitions with no incentive to de-homogenize the major players alliances.


Zenethalos wrote:
(...)
The issue I have with this is that I believe that myself and many people in smaller organizations or are now glimpsing threw the looking glass at the current situation want mechanics that favor creating coalitions out of necessity not out of convenience. Once the necessity is gone the mechanics would create an incentive to breaking the coalition and get people back to shooting each other. At the current it seems like the closest we have and 0.0 NIP's to stave off the boredom.


@Zenthalos
I really like your style.
Maybe i had some provocative headlines to get it rolling.
That is exactly the problem that CCP needs to adress. They created the current systems that led to boredom not much fun. They are the ones who could fix it.

Max Doobie wrote:


NUllsec main here...and even I have to admit, the whole "Sea of Blues" thing is corny as hell.

Null should be complete and utter chaos.

That's why I have to agree with the Highseccers who laugh at Nullseccers who complain about Risk VS Reward.

I feel safer in null sec than in low or high,and thats the damned truth.


...Just sayin. Null could be a lot better. All of this buddy buddy crap is lame.


There is support out of the "Sea of Blues".

CCP go back to the drawing board with SOV 0.0. A major revamp is needed.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#50 - 2012-12-25 19:02:14 UTC
Max Doobie wrote:
All I'm saying is there should be more INCENTIVE for chaos, not for them to directly break up the coalitions. Just put the bowl of candy out there. Right now there is only incentive to form coalitions. There is no incentive for going rogue and going against the grain. It's All Bureaucratic bs.

Yes I want chaos. I want drama. I want betrayal. I want blood and guts. I want action. I want Medieval Europe.,,,without the Feudalism...that's another issue I have with null. A handful of nerds have all the say and that handful of nerds are best buddies so this "Kumbaya" crap starts from the top. Splintering is not an option because the chance of a new Alliance not being blobbed is close to nil. Either that or they join a coalition and the Blue circle jerk continues.

I love my guys in Test but the fact remains, to me, Null is the SAFEST space in EVE, and that my friend is Ridonkulous.

You should FEAR going into null sec. It's the lawless land. Your heart should pound every time you even THINK about crossing that line. Most of us? Man, my heart pounds harder when I'm in Empire.


Yes, you want "conflict drivers", as we all do.

There is a big difference between more reasons to fight and less ability to coordinate. The former is a good thing, the latter is a bad thing.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-12-25 19:19:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Miri Amatonur
Varius Xeral wrote:

Yes, you want "conflict drivers", as we all do.

There is a big difference between more reasons to fight and less ability to coordinate. The former is a good thing, the latter is a bad thing.


Us pointed out a bit above some of the stuff was put in to get it rolling.

More conflict drivers could be more corporations and alliances that are active within SOV 0.0. The current stagnant super coalitions with their sea of blues is a major problem for that. The current mechanics and sets of rules led to it. That needs to be adressed an changed.
CCP defined that and they have to do it.
That the current leaders of that super coalitions don't like the change is easy to understand. They are likely to lose alot of power and influence.

Let the hammer fall on the old system.
CCP Falcon
#52 - 2012-12-25 19:49:38 UTC

Nonconstructive rant.

Locked.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
Previous page123