These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"Make smaller better"
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#141 - 2013-01-01 14:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Miri Amatonur
double post. sorry for that.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#142 - 2013-01-01 14:54:28 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:

Yes we should be able to take systems from them easily. But it wouldn't take long to be blobed out, outnumbered with 10:1 or more.


Why?

Quote:
Unless you do it while they are sleeping in rl. Even then you have no chance to take it or keep it, since they have to defend it else they would look weak. And wasn't there a lag of PvP in Null?


Removing timers would massively hurt smaller groups who can't provide full TZ coverage. Removing timers would also remove an enormous amount of PvP and cripple industry (because wars would just be about who can afford to drop endless sov structures).

Quote:
The only way to get this runing would be an attack of thousands of smaller alliances/corps at the same time and everywhere. But what would that be? Super Coalition!
We already have enough leviathan corporations/alliances/coalitions. We want no more of them!

It is a game mechanic issue i "complain" about. Current game mechanics favours numbers. EVE is no real world simulation. it's a sandbox game made by CCP. The game mechanics were contrived by CCP. Some mechanics are nonsensical, just have a look at the SOV system.


Everything in the world ever favors numbers. One of the most compelling theories about why Humans have such large brains (20% of our Caloric intake goes to brain maintenance) is that it allows us to deal with larger social groups. There's a fantastically strong correlation between primate brain size and social group size. Our increasing brain size wasn't an arms race of "smarts" or "inventiveness" or anything like that, it was an arms race of numbers. The people who could organize 20 person tribes outcompeted the people only able to organize 10 person tribes, and were in turn out competed by those who could organize 30 person tribes.

2>1 is what you're complaining about. 2>1 is not a game mechanic, it's how the world works. There's nothing contrived about it.

You know why we cheer for David when he fights Goliath? Because we know that, 99 times out of 100, Goliath pounds David into a bloody pulp. You're saying that David should regularly win. That's a contrivance.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2013-01-01 16:27:59 UTC
Ruby, so you claim that there are effective strategies already for small groups that can be used against big blob alliances?

Could you then please explain to me why:

A: We still have a handful of mega-blob alliances?

B: Why these blobs complain about lack of activity in null

Because if what you say is true then these discussions would not even be necessary, because then we would have seen all these small groups harassing everyone in null to a decent effect and everyone would be happy.

Or do you claim that everyone who is not in a big group are just a bunch of idiots who don't know how to play the game or something? You seem to be awfully keen on generalizing all the high-sec corps together into one single nice lump.

Also it would be nice if you did not assume that 10 man groups automatically have capital ships or assume that 10 man groups should be able to hold a system easily. I am still not going as far as to claim that 10 man groups should easily be able to hold a system. Sov should require reasonable manpower after all.

100 people taking sov from 1000 should obviously be possible depending on how aware the defenders are/willing to defend/insert whatever other appropriate factors here. Keeping the system however is a whole different ballgame. The 100 man group would then be forced to face off against 1000 if they decide to retaliate full force. Absolutely nothing wrong here whatsoever.
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#144 - 2013-01-01 16:30:34 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Everything in the world ever favors numbers. One of the most compelling theories about why Humans have such large brains (20% of our Caloric intake goes to brain maintenance) is that it allows us to deal with larger social groups. There's a fantastically strong correlation between primate brain size and social group size. Our increasing brain size wasn't an arms race of "smarts" or "inventiveness" or anything like that, it was an arms race of numbers. The people who could organize 20 person tribes outcompeted the people only able to organize 10 person tribes, and were in turn out competed by those who could organize 30 person tribes.


It was a combination of being smart and inventive and numbers if you ask me. 10 tribesmen with a bow kill 20 with a stick at range.
I'm sure we could argue a year long with historical wars and empires to prove both points.

RubyPorto wrote:
You know why we cheer for David when he fights Goliath? Because we know that, 99 times out of 100, Goliath pounds David into a bloody pulp. You're saying that David should regularly win. That's a contrivance.


Looks like we found the missunderstanding. I don't say that the smaller should always win. But as it stands right now in EVE the odds are much worse for him to succeed. (Thought your argument is something about smart&inventive kills numbers/strength)

RubyPorto wrote:
Removing timers would massively hurt smaller groups who can't provide full TZ coverage. Removing timers would also remove an enormous amount of PvP and cripple industry (because wars would just be about who can afford to drop endless sov structures).


I didn't say remove timers. You understood that the wrong way. The SOV system as it stands with all it's structure grind is contrived and nonsensical. It was an easy way (more or less) to grant time to mount a defence but it brought Null to the stagnation of today. Ever growing super cooperations/alliances/coalitions. The current systems climax will be a Null under the rule of just one super coalition.

The SOV system is a game mechanic introduced by CCP and it needs a revamp from the ground. The how to, is the problem of CCP from my point of view.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#145 - 2013-01-01 18:00:51 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Ruby, so you claim that there are effective strategies already for small groups that can be used against big blob alliances?

Could you then please explain to me why:

A: We still have a handful of mega-blob alliances?

B: Why these blobs complain about lack of activity in null

Because if what you say is true then these discussions would not even be necessary, because then we would have seen all these small groups harassing everyone in null to a decent effect and everyone would be happy.

Or do you claim that everyone who is not in a big group are just a bunch of idiots who don't know how to play the game or something? You seem to be awfully keen on generalizing all the high-sec corps together into one single nice lump.

Also it would be nice if you did not assume that 10 man groups automatically have capital ships or assume that 10 man groups should be able to hold a system easily. I am still not going as far as to claim that 10 man groups should easily be able to hold a system. Sov should require reasonable manpower after all.

100 people taking sov from 1000 should obviously be possible depending on how aware the defenders are/willing to defend/insert whatever other appropriate factors here. Keeping the system however is a whole different ballgame. The 100 man group would then be forced to face off against 1000 if they decide to retaliate full force. Absolutely nothing wrong here whatsoever.




A: Because Harassment != Killing and kicking from their space.

B: Because there's no real reason to live in Null at the moment, so there're fewer harassment targets than there used to be. It's a relative lack of activity that people complain about. (Also, a lot of the people who complain are too lazy for some of the strategies.)


Why should 100 people be able to take a system from 1000 people who are actively defending it? You're saying it's obvious when it's not at all. If you're saying a 100 man group should be able to take an undefended system, guess what? They already can (easily).

The second part of your suggestion implies that you want to remove timers which would be crippling to the smaller groups (believe it or not, they do exist), who can't provide full TZ coverage, and would turn war into a monstrous logistical nightmare of constantly dropping new Sov Structures while systems flip back and forth almost at random (also would make a war between Alliances strong in different TZs ridiculous and unwinnable).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#146 - 2013-01-01 18:14:12 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
It was a combination of being smart and inventive and numbers if you ask me. 10 tribesmen with a bow kill 20 with a stick at range.
I'm sure we could argue a year long with historical wars and empires to prove both points.


That's not how evolution works. Inventiveness is too rare to provide a reproductive advantage to the individual, so it's unlikely to be selected for.

Quote:
Looks like we found the missunderstanding. I don't say that the smaller should always win. But as it stands right now in EVE the odds are much worse for him to succeed. (Thought your argument is something about smart&inventive kills numbers/strength)


As it should be. David still can kill Goliath in EVE. But 99 times out of 100, he won't.



Quote:
I didn't say remove timers. You understood that the wrong way. The SOV system as it stands with all it's structure grind is contrived and nonsensical. It was an easy way (more or less) to grant time to mount a defence but it brought Null to the stagnation of today. Ever growing super cooperations/alliances/coalitions. The current systems climax will be a Null under the rule of just one super coalition.

The SOV system is a game mechanic introduced by CCP and it needs a revamp from the ground. The how to, is the problem of CCP from my point of view.


Structure HP and Structure Bashing aren't the reason small groups are unable to take systems. They can't take them because timers allow a vigorous defense. However, this works both ways, preventing a larger group from immediately steamrolling all of a smaller group's space.

How is it contrived or nonsensical to have to defeat the enemy's castles when you're invading? Providing a way to prepare for a fight is good game mechanics (because otherwise people would just play TZ hopscotch, steamrolling as many systems as they can in their TZ and hoping a few don't get retaken on the opposite TZ).


You're saying that you don't like the current Sov mechanics because they allow a 1000 man group willing to defend their house to not get kicked out of their house by a 100 man group, but can't explain how you'd want to change it (and say that you don't want to change the very thing that causes what you're complaining about). Man up and propose something instead of complaining uselessly.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2013-01-01 18:29:29 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Ruby, so you claim that there are effective strategies already for small groups that can be used against big blob alliances?

Could you then please explain to me why:

A: We still have a handful of mega-blob alliances?

B: Why these blobs complain about lack of activity in null

Because if what you say is true then these discussions would not even be necessary, because then we would have seen all these small groups harassing everyone in null to a decent effect and everyone would be happy.

Or do you claim that everyone who is not in a big group are just a bunch of idiots who don't know how to play the game or something? You seem to be awfully keen on generalizing all the high-sec corps together into one single nice lump.

Also it would be nice if you did not assume that 10 man groups automatically have capital ships or assume that 10 man groups should be able to hold a system easily. I am still not going as far as to claim that 10 man groups should easily be able to hold a system. Sov should require reasonable manpower after all.

100 people taking sov from 1000 should obviously be possible depending on how aware the defenders are/willing to defend/insert whatever other appropriate factors here. Keeping the system however is a whole different ballgame. The 100 man group would then be forced to face off against 1000 if they decide to retaliate full force. Absolutely nothing wrong here whatsoever.




A: Because Harassment != Killing and kicking from their space.

B: Because there's no real reason to live in Null at the moment, so there're fewer harassment targets than there used to be. It's a relative lack of activity that people complain about. (Also, a lot of the people who complain are too lazy for some of the strategies.)


Why should 100 people be able to take a system from 1000 people who are actively defending it? You're saying it's obvious when it's not at all. If you're saying a 100 man group should be able to take an undefended system, guess what? They already can (easily).

The second part of your suggestion implies that you want to remove timers which would be crippling to the smaller groups (believe it or not, they do exist), who can't provide full TZ coverage, and would turn war into a monstrous logistical nightmare of constantly dropping new Sov Structures while systems flip back and forth almost at random (also would make a war between Alliances strong in different TZs ridiculous and unwinnable).


A: But here is the thing: if harassment was truly possible then wouldn't it mean that the power of the large blobs would be smaller than it is today due to the investments required to deal with this? Wouldn't the blobs have to worry more about who is in their space and try and defend it? Please do share with me: how often does your alliance have to deal with harassment and defend your industrials against active and successful attacks? Anything that is less than 1 times every 24 hours is beyond pathetically small.
It does not matter if it is about holding space or not - this is about small groups fighting large groups in the only way they can.

B: If there is no reason to live in Null then why aren't you packing up and leaving it? Sorry but you're sprouting BS on this one. Null is quite a profitable place if exploited, you know it and I know it. If it wasn't we wouldn't even have these capital ship saturated blobs of today. The lack of activity comes merely from the environment that the EVE mechanics and blobs have created.

100 players attacking 1000 actively defending players should generally not result in a win to the 100 man team. I am still saying that direct confrontation should play out the way they are now. I am talking about alternatives here and I think we keep missing each other here. Sure, if the 1000 man group can defend themselves against all types of attacks, whether they are blob-scale or harassment scale then they should and hopefully win. The thing is however that they must become more open to these kind of attacks if you ever want any life brought to null. I am not saying that small groups should become the ends mean for everything, just another level of warfare that must be taken into consideration and thus also become an entry gateway for small groups. I dunno, either I am just bad at explaining myself or people are trying to constantly take my words out of context in order to suit their own needs - in any case it is starting to become somewhat annoying.

As for timers I haven't said a single word about changing them or sov mechanics. Timezones is quite the sensitive topic and I sort of have my doubts on whether it is possible to ignore time-zones to the same extent as say Planetside 2. But EVE is not Planetside 2 as the former actually has consequences while the latter pretty much has none thus my doubts. It would certainly be liberating yes, but whether practical or balanced is a whole different matter.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#148 - 2013-01-01 18:33:59 UTC
Nothing wrong with size, till people get bored and start crying for unneeded changes.

So if you want to be friendly with everyone and roll in a blob then kindly stfu.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#149 - 2013-01-01 19:25:44 UTC
Quote:

baltec1 wrote:


Its not impossible, my corp has been doing it for years.


If you don't mean another Corp than Bat Country it's no surprise because they are part of Goonswarm since 2010.


We merged with Bats in 2010. Before that we were Antres Shipyards and spent years fighting and beating whatever superpower tried to take venal. Just last year we went to war with everyone in highsec and brought it to its knees with just 20 pilots.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#150 - 2013-01-01 19:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
A: But here is the thing: if harassment was truly possible then wouldn't it mean that the power of the large blobs would be smaller than it is today due to the investments required to deal with this? Wouldn't the blobs have to worry more about who is in their space and try and defend it? Please do share with me: how often does your alliance have to deal with harassment and defend your industrials against active and successful attacks? Anything that is less than 1 times every 24 hours is beyond pathetically small.
It does not matter if it is about holding space or not - this is about small groups fighting large groups in the only way they can.


Well, since my alliance doesn't hold space and never will, we just harass other people. ProviBlock doesn't like us very much at the moment because of it.

One problem is that there really aren't many "industrials" in null because you can do so much better in HS with no risk. (Hmm, ratting in a Carrier in Null or running HS incursions making more money while protected by CONCORD and safe in my 1 man alt corp that can disband/reform to dodge wardecs).

As for the number of people who actively harass large alliances, that's not a game mechanics problem, it's people not being willing to put their money/effort where their mouths go.

Harassment is absolutely possible. It's Waffles' primary activity.

Quote:
B: If there is no reason to live in Null then why aren't you packing up and leaving it? Sorry but you're sprouting BS on this one. Null is quite a profitable place if exploited, you know it and I know it. If it wasn't we wouldn't even have these capital ship saturated blobs of today. The lack of activity comes merely from the environment that the EVE mechanics and blobs have created.


Null is somewhere between marginally more profitable to vastly less profitable than HS across all segments of individual ISK making, and it takes a lot of effort for it to get there. It generally makes much more sense to make your ISK in HS, where your ISK/Effort and ISK/risk are vastly higher.

I don't make my ISK where I live, and neither do many people who live in Null. Want good targets to harass? Convince CCP to make Null worth making money in again.


Quote:
100 players attacking 1000 actively defending players should generally not result in a win to the 100 man team. I am still saying that direct confrontation should play out the way they are now. I am talking about alternatives here and I think we keep missing each other here. Sure, if the 1000 man group can defend themselves against all types of attacks, whether they are blob-scale or harassment scale then they should and hopefully win. The thing is however that they must become more open to these kind of attacks if you ever want any life brought to null. I am not saying that small groups should become the ends mean for everything, just another level of warfare that must be taken into consideration and thus also become an entry gateway for small groups. I dunno, either I am just bad at explaining myself or people are trying to constantly take my words out of context in order to suit their own needs - in any case it is starting to become somewhat annoying.

As for timers I haven't said a single word about changing them or sov mechanics. Timezones is quite the sensitive topic and I sort of have my doubts on whether it is possible to ignore time-zones to the same extent as say Planetside 2. But EVE is not Planetside 2 as the former actually has consequences while the latter pretty much has none thus my doubts. It would certainly be liberating yes, but whether practical or balanced is a whole different matter.


Why should harassment result in Sov gain? Small groups can all ready be very effective at harassing larger groups. The damage just isn't as obvious as "we took system X."

You keep saying that a 100 man group should be able to take a system from an active 1000 man group. To make that possible, you'd either need some contrived system to make the 1000 man group weaker, or you'd need to get rid of timers.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2013-01-01 20:13:34 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Null is somewhere between marginally more profitable to vastly less profitable than HS across all segments of individual ISK making, and it takes a lot of effort for it to get there. It generally makes much more sense to make your ISK in HS, where your ISK/Effort and ISK/risk are vastly higher.


Yes, and what exactly is wrong with this? Nothing keeps null alliances from making ISK in highsec along with nullsec, but for people that hope to challenge nullsec powerblocks in the future the ONLY place they can make ISK is highsec.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#152 - 2013-01-01 20:35:03 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
(...)
Why should harassment result in Sov gain? Small groups can all ready be very effective at harassing larger groups. The damage just isn't as obvious as "we took system X."

You keep saying that a 100 man group should be able to take a system from an active 1000 man group. To make that possible, you'd either need some contrived system to make the 1000 man group weaker, or you'd need to get rid of timers.


Just harassment shouldn't result in SOV gain. It stays at it is, maybe a mechanic could be added to pillage resources or ISK from the SOV holder to make it more interesting.
I'm not sure about that and it's not really my agenda.

Taking SOV with 100 players from 1000 both parties active. Yes that should be possible with the new system if the 1000 don't put in enough effort to hold it. Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100). That sounds a bit tricky and i can't tell how it could be forged to be honest.

The effort for the smaller party should be smaller than for the larger. But if the larger put in enough effort they keep it. It's a bit more complex than the current system. But isn't being complex one of EVE's earmarks?
From my limited point the following stuff has to be in the equation:
- number of members
- number of SOV systems
- number of Outposts
- ISK
- usage of the system by owner (jumps, ratting, mining, ...)
- titans, super caps
- blue listings if they are close to the area of operation (SOV, fleets, members)

The more i write down the more the word "power level rating" comes to my mind. That rating would be part of the determination.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#153 - 2013-01-01 20:36:21 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Null is somewhere between marginally more profitable to vastly less profitable than HS across all segments of individual ISK making, and it takes a lot of effort for it to get there. It generally makes much more sense to make your ISK in HS, where your ISK/Effort and ISK/risk are vastly higher.

I don't make my ISK where I live, and neither do many people who live in Null. Want good targets to harass? Convince CCP to make Null worth making money in again.

Highsec is a wonderful place.
RubyPorto wrote:
Why should harassment result in Sov gain? Small groups can all ready be very effective at harassing larger groups. The damage just isn't as obvious as "we took system X."

You keep saying that a 100 man group should be able to take a system from an active 1000 man group. To make that possible, you'd either need some contrived system to make the 1000 man group weaker, or you'd need to get rid of timers.

No timers would be amusing, you could go around flipping whole regions in short order with a good supercap fleet and prepared cynos etc.

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 ?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#154 - 2013-01-01 22:21:23 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
Taking SOV with 100 players from 1000 both parties active. Yes that should be possible with the new system if the 1000 don't put in enough effort to hold it. Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100). That sounds a bit tricky and i can't tell how it could be forged to be honest.

That's possible now. The only difference between larger and smaller groups when one group doesn't defend their sov is it generally takes the smaller group longer to do the structure grind, so in many cases they don't even bother.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#155 - 2013-01-01 22:21:52 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Yes, and what exactly is wrong with this? Nothing keeps null alliances from making ISK in highsec along with nullsec, but for people that hope to challenge nullsec powerblocks in the future the ONLY place they can make ISK is highsec.


What's wrong with it is that there's no real motivation to live in Null once you've taken it. People complain about Nullsec alliances owning more space than they can use: It's not that they can't use it, it's that it's not worth using.

HS has no significant risk while Nullsec (even deep blue space) has numerous sources of significant risk (that I've already mentioned). Nullsec is meant to provide a proper income to reward that risk. Right now, that's broken (and has been for well over a year).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#156 - 2013-01-01 22:32:23 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
Just harassment shouldn't result in SOV gain. It stays at it is, maybe a mechanic could be added to pillage resources or ISK from the SOV holder to make it more interesting.
I'm not sure about that and it's not really my agenda.


Like, perhaps, pillaging the nice loot from pimpfit ratting ships? Oh, wait...

Quote:
Taking SOV with 100 players from 1000 both parties active. Yes that should be possible with the new system if the 1000 don't put in enough effort to hold it. Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100). That sounds a bit tricky and i can't tell how it could be forged to be honest.


You've still not made a convincing argument why the hell 1000 guys shouldn't be able to keep their home from falling to 100 guys when they're actively defending it.

Quote:
The effort for the smaller party should be smaller than for the larger. But if the larger put in enough effort they keep it. It's a bit more complex than the current system. But isn't being complex one of EVE's earmarks?
From my limited point the following stuff has to be in the equation:
- number of members
- number of SOV systems
- number of Outposts
- ISK
- usage of the system by owner (jumps, ratting, mining, ...)
- titans, super caps
- blue listings if they are close to the area of operation (SOV, fleets, members)

The more i write down the more the word "power level rating" comes to my mind. That rating would be part of the determination.


If the effort to take a system is smaller for a smaller group, the 1000 man group will simply take 10 systems at a time (10x 100 man groups working together).

Nerfing people based on Membership and blue lists is just silly contrivance. Here's how that ends up working: Holding alliance(s) holds Sov and is neutral to the Alliance doing the work*. Holding alliance has like 5 alts in it. The power rating of all that is much lower than any attacking force, giving the defender of Sov space an even larger advantage than they already have.

Not to mention how silly and contrived a "nerf numbers" mechanic is. You're seriously suggesting that getting help from your friends to do something should make you *worse* at doing it.


*People run fleets with "allied" neuts all the time, because it's ::effort:: to set standings for just a short time.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Miri Amatonur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#157 - 2013-01-01 23:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Miri Amatonur
RubyPorto wrote:
You've still not made a convincing argument why the hell 1000 guys shouldn't be able to keep their home from falling to 100 guys when they're actively defending it.


answer:
Miri Amatonur wrote:

Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100).


RubyPorto wrote:

If the effort to take a system is smaller for a smaller group, the 1000 man group will simply take 10 systems at a time (10x 100 man groups working together).

Nerfing people based on Membership and blue lists is just silly contrivance. Here's how that ends up working: Holding alliance(s) holds Sov and is neutral to the Alliance doing the work*. Holding alliance has like 5 alts in it. The power rating of all that is much lower than any attacking force, giving the defender of Sov space an even larger advantage than they already have.

Not to mention how silly and contrived a "nerf numbers" mechanic is. You're seriously suggesting that getting help from your friends to do something should make you *worse* at doing it.


*People run fleets with "allied" neuts all the time, because it's ::effort:: to set standings for just a short time.


I don't see a problem here. There is nothing that couldn't be overcome.
It's to ease the overpowering effects of the current system that places numbers above everything else. There is no counter to numbers at the moment.

Example:
If i would manage to find 50000 "friends" and invade Null with T1 BCs it's very likely that i could steamroll everyone there within time.

That is just a small exaggeration of where we are heading today. The first super alliance hit 11000 characters the 2nd in the line close to 9000.

Make a suggestion for another counter if you don't like mine.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#158 - 2013-01-01 23:47:57 UTC
Miri Amatonur wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
You've still not made a convincing argument why the hell 1000 guys shouldn't be able to keep their home from falling to 100 guys when they're actively defending it.


answer:
Miri Amatonur wrote:

Thought the 1000 should also be able to take it back or not lose it at all if it's one of their key systems (against 100).


Not actually an answer to my question. Why should 1000 guys lose any of their systems that they're actively defending to a 100 man group?

Quote:
I don't see a problem here. There is nothing that couldn't be overcome.
It's to ease the overpowering effects of the current system that places numbers above everything else. There is no counter to numbers at the moment.

Example:
If i would manage to find 50000 "friends" and invade Null with T1 BCs it's very likely that i could steamroll everyone there within time.

That is just a small exaggeration of where we are heading today. The first super alliance hit 11000 characters the 2nd in the line close to 9000.

Make a suggestion for another counter if you don't like mine.



I'm saying that the strategy "I brought more friends than you did" proving to be a winning one is just fine. That's how it works in real life, that's how it works in every game that doesn't use a contrived numbers cap, that's what makes sense.

You have yet to present any argument for WHY 1 guy should have a good chance against 10 (or 100 against 1000), all else being equal.

Historically, the way 1 guy beats 10 is by making everything else very unequal. The problem people are having is that (it turns out), the guys in 1000 man groups have at least as many really good players as the guys in 100 man groups, so it's very difficult to stack the deck (cause they're stacking the deck their direction just as much as you are yours).

I see no problem with the continuation of 2>1.



For various other reasons, I'd like to see the return of a variant of pre-Dominion Sov; allowing Alliances to reduce the cost of owning space in exchange for reduced protection for their space (a system with full Moon coverage was Expensive, but a fortress, while a system with 1 Large POS holding it was cheap, but relatively easy to contest). But that's a separate topic.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#159 - 2013-01-02 01:08:57 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Null is somewhere between marginally more profitable to vastly less profitable than HS across all segments of individual ISK making, and it takes a lot of effort for it to get there. It generally makes much more sense to make your ISK in HS, where your ISK/Effort and ISK/risk are vastly higher.


Yes, and what exactly is wrong with this? Nothing keeps null alliances from making ISK in highsec along with nullsec, but for people that hope to challenge nullsec powerblocks in the future the ONLY place they can make ISK is highsec.


thank you for regaling us with keen insights like "the only places to make ISK are sov nullsec and the newbie zone"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
No More Heroes
Boomer Humor
Snuffed Out
#160 - 2013-01-02 01:16:00 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Could you then please explain to me why:

A: We still have a handful of mega-blob alliances?

B: Why these blobs complain about lack of activity in null


It can be hard to notice unless you are familiar with who is who but the only ones complaining are those who lost their space, to larger groups unironically. We have tons of activity with multiple groups deployed all over the map.

.