EVE General Discussion

I am in that vid, that was awesome lol. Local spiking + 150, locals asking like wtf.. hahah :fun:

You filled it in incorrectly and demonstrated no understanding of how to structure an argument. I re-wrote it to give you a chance to try again and to help prevent you from filling it out incorrectly again.

You need to support a claim with a coherent argument. That form is there to help you structure a coherent argument. If you'd like to make your argument without it, that's fine, so long as you can make your argument legible, coherent, and rational.



A large group can also blaze new or temporary jump routes much more easily than the small groups (If you have 10 guys and need to send 1 out to light a cyno, you've sent away 10% of your force. If you have 100, it's only 1%. Large groups also have a larger pool of available alts.).



Tell me how "the JF jumped to an extra Blue station on its route" (the case for larger groups in the face of a range nerf) makes it's route easier to disrupt, while "the JF jumped to an extra POS in hostile space on its route" (the case for smaller groups) doesn't.



You going to provide any support for these claims?



Changing Jump range/cyno mechanics will not achieve (or help to achieve) any of the goals you suggest that it will.

I had your entire post quoted but unfortunately it will not allow for all of them to be requoted.

Tautology is defeating me. Sorry.

You are using counter arguments based on something that has the potential to change with a nerf to jumping mechanics so I can't think 3 dimensionally in regards to responding to over half of what you said. You are using existing arguments to argue something I'm considering what the nerf would change.

You don't know that the same blue areas that the JF would be jumping to would still be blue if power projection and more people were in null, therefore changing the sov dynamics.

You only know they are blue right now.

At any rate, it really doesn't matter, as the fotm is worrying about pos revamps not getting the attention they deserve anyways, and like mentioned before, this isn't my idea so I cannot defend or meet your argument qualifications how you have them set.

Sorry for doing it "incorrectly".

Good to hear null is working as intended. I should think we should have no further problems with power projection as it stands and therefore everything is good with everything null.

Guess I'm wrong, so I'll leave. We are circling and beating a dead horse to the ground on the basis that an argument has to meet certain requirements. That's simply not true lol.

Safe flying sir.

And yet when I asked you questions in turn, you can't answer them.

Pretend you are not my girlfriend telling me how I should act, and maybe you'll get farther in life.

Secondly. I did. You then asked for more, and took more and more and more...

Adding more stops would help change sov landscape.

Making sov landscape harder to maintain would lessen the amount of force you can project, and nerfing the ability to move those forces would also lower the threat of same said force projection.

You say it won't because of manpower and more money. That in itself doesn't mean anything other than spending more resources.

But that's also a problem with those larger alliances. Money. You want more supercaps. Logistics, more fuel, more escorts. More ships.

Hurts the larger more than the smaller.

I've said all this. You just don't agree with it.

See, you are directly comparing the large group versus the small group. That's your problem. It's easier for the smaller group to adapt. Period.

So to answer your original question, yes, and it does make sense. Because you're thinking that the smaller group just has to kill the pos and that the larger just needs to reset the timer.

But it's just not about timers. That's only 1 facet of sov warfare. That's the grind. Engagments of ship versus ship is also important.

Fun is also important.

You seem to want to focus on timers, and maybe that's fun for you, but I'd rather see large scale combat, not just pos bashing.

And in regards to freighting, because that is what this thread is about, not sov warfare that you'd rather focus on, can end up causing alot of problems for larger groups that have to focus on escorts. And that could theortically be accomplished by nerfing cynos and titan bridges and power projection by secondarily or even tertiarily work against the larger coalitions in regards to the sea of blue.

Think of it like chess not checkers. It's not instant gratification, but a cascade of issues that would slowly erode and change things on a dynamic level.

Not being able to maintain the sea of blue therefore the outposts and logistics of freighting could be seriously hampered because then you're looking at things that would have to be rewrked, wether through combat or through diplomacy.

Stretching things thin hurt the larger groups far more than the smaller groups. You don't see smaller groups holding a sea of blue, but tighter knit and focused in a small pocket. Easier to self sustain.

The back corner pockets that would be logistically a nightmare to transverse for a nerfed freighter of a small corp would show that maybe that small corner would be a mistake.

So do I think 10 coalitions are better than 3? Yes. Do I think that holder smaller amounts of null would be healthier? Yes.

Pure and simple. I'd rather see smaller amounts of null be held by coalitions.

[quote=RubyPortoPoint to one area where a small group is successfully holding worthwhile space (Provi doesn't count, as it's been shown that Proviblock can essentially be kicked out at will) that is not surrounded by blues or NIPs.

And how do you think that nerfing cynos/jump range/or any other game mechanic will do that, short of fixing the "problem" of 1+1 being greater than 1?[/quote]


There are more, far smaller alliances than GSF in Eve, and in especially Sov null. Just to bring something "recent" in, I'll link this from the mittani, which is just what looks like, fun. (http://themittani.com/news/cfc-vs-dndlo-bloody-venal-capital-fight)

I don't see where "blockading into their station" is taking sov. It's just fights. This isn't represented by taking sov, but it shows how things can escalate to the point of stupidity. That right there with calling in titans is just the unchecked power projection I am speaking of. Make things like that more difficult, or costly to the point of not wanting to throw that kind of stuff around. From pinning someone in a station to calling in titans and the scale of fight is not even that large. Oh wait, we aren't supposed to be talking about titans, I almost forgot. Cynos and whatnot don't need to be nerfed.

Your example of GSF moving across the stars is an excellent point! If we were talking about managerial skills with a current working business model of veteran players not being able to afford their bills, or rather (excuse me) forgetting to pay them. Of course it's easier to give that as an example.

How about -AAA- as an example? They do not exist anymore. Albeit by ways of management changing over the years, they have degenerated into a smoldering wreck. But they were able to take back what they lost. So again, sov being lost and taken and retaken etc... we all know it changes hands like currency.

As to Provi, well, I spent time there too, and although it's "at will" it isn't.. since they are still there. Regardless of "what if". Why are they back if they could be ejected? If what you are saying is true, why isn't all of sov null blue?

Why do people still fight to fight, in null?


Oh as an afterthought, it's going to be really hard for those same groups of people who are throwing around titans and supercaps for "s'n'g"s to be able to argue for industry changes to null if they truly are going to be that spacerich. If you have everything in null that could be had and control 40% of everything, not really going to make a good case to take away from a different security space's advantages. Big picture speaking anyways.

Your only answer was one of showing a force that is too big to curtail in every single part of the post you made. None of that is giving any indication it should be left alone.

How do you say that it is NOT power projection? Those examples are exactly why the nerf is called for. You know, the "take it at will" aspect of it all. That is by far scarier than I think you are willing to admit.

He's not obligated to demonstrate that the system should be left alone, you are obligated to demonstrate why it should be changed.

You still haven't done so.

The only problem I see with power projection is that it enables the defense of much larger territories with the same number of ships. Nerfing power projection would mean that alliances and coalitions have to become more selective with what they claim to be theirs, because overextending would leave them unable to hold their territory so effectively.

Here's an idea... what about making cynos a point-to-point connection? Meaning that two cyno points would have to be established and connected prior to ships jumping? That would at least mean that a scattered fleet would require much more time and resources to assemble. Interesting side effect: a fleet could potentially become stranded if it lost all of its local cyno ships.

Why would the cost be ruinous to the smaller alliance? They are using smaller #s therefore less cost, and for the most part, in fact become more spacerich per pilot than the larger.

And how would having to form up earlier not help the smaller alliance? It also works in their favor. They are more mobile. Logistically, things like that hurt larger forces more than smaller.

James wants to say I haven't proven why... I've given plenty of examples. The answer was comparing the smaller alliance having the same scale of problems the larger faces, which simply is not true.

If you limited cybos to point to point, or by mass, or by range, it's still easier to move a few dozen ships over a few hundred.

And this isn't only for pos bashing, which I also have mentioned before. Economically, logistically, as well as physically (combat) you can cause a lot of strife to a larger coalition. We all know propaganda, intel and subversion are tactics in sov warfare, you want to claim it's only bashing structures.

Why is morale so easily to ignore? That is where a smaller group can do far more damage to an effect over a larger alliance. Frustrate your FCs, get them to commit larger isk ships to recompense losses midfight. Again, my reference to chess.

Tactics.

You are thinking in regards to straight up brawl, and I think that's why James chimes in too. But as a straight up brawl a smaller force very rarely wins.

But with more jumps needed, and a longer supply route, or even making that larger force muster their forces with more time, and more logistics, in fact does help the smaller force.

This is why it shouldn't be so easy to move your fleets around. Make it harder for the larger by limiting the ways in which to travel. Not removal, but a "limit". More often than not, the smaller forces just might be able to fit in to that "limit".

What don't think a smaller force can do good? I implore you to watch a Bombers Bar video. Any of them. Good example there.

You can use a strategy such as that to a very devastating effect.