These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A message everyone in HED-GP can come together about

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#161 - 2014-01-19 14:56:47 UTC
I could live with losing our JB networks, the titan bridges and slapping 2 hour cooldowns for capital jump drives.
Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#162 - 2014-01-19 15:11:43 UTC
Bland Inquisitor;

Damage % based on tidi will still have the same end result..
Whoever comes to the party first/already loaded on grid will be able to apply dps, while whoever comes in last
will die like yesterday.
People taking trips to the pub for a few beers while ON GRID in HED and still alive without damage recived a few hours later is hardly good mechanics or PR for the game.
But speeding up the dying for newcomers to the field (hasnt loaded grid/unable to control their ships) isnt much on an improvement beyond reducing the waste of time. They are in effect given even less time to load grid (if I read your post correctly)
Mr Blah Blahson
Doomheim
#163 - 2014-01-19 15:38:12 UTC
And you sov folk make fun of carebears for profiteering up in hi-sec.

At least when I mine or play the market, it doesn't take me 30 minutes to complete 1 command.
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#164 - 2014-01-19 15:42:27 UTC
Beekeeper Bob wrote:

That being said, it seems like CCP has bugged the code worse than ever, this fight reminded me of Y-2, where PL Titans jumped in late and died where they stood, never loaded. That was over 3 years ago?

I foolishly jumped in late and spent 3 hours in the warp tunnel before I saw local chat, grid never loaded. I had to log three times and reboot my computer before I finally got in, 5.5 hours after I jumped.
My Nyx was on grid for over two hours before i was actually able to pilot it....

CCP needs to shelf the fluff and garbage and do some serious work on the code before this simply gets to be too much for some people...

I guess my tentative plan to send an alt to Null to see what it's all about will have to be shelved. No way I am going to ever be a part of that. Sucks too. I think it would be cool zipping around a big fleet fight in a frigate, like a scene out of Star Wars. 10 year old code, some of which apparently CCP doesn't even understand. This game is suffering from old-code-syndrome. I would think that a 2 year plan to release Eve 2 would be the smartest thing they could possibly do right now. Something multi-threaded and able to handle 4k ships on grid.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2014-01-19 15:45:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.

So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.

I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.

Take this little game below:

You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and and adjacant node per turn.

The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.

The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.

to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#166 - 2014-01-19 15:48:54 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.

So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.

I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.

Take this little game below:

You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and other nodes per turn.

The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.

The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.

to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.



Well, intresting consept, but wont futher escalate the need for blocs? Need even more numbers to compete in the sov game.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#167 - 2014-01-19 15:50:34 UTC
Niding wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.

So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.

I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.

Take this little game below:

You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and other nodes per turn.

The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.

The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.

to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.



Well, intresting consept, but wont futher escalate the need for blocs? Need even more numbers to compete in the sov game.

Oh I'm not saying its a solution for EVE, its just a mini game where blobbing can't be used to win but rather the requirement to spread out is mandatory.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Victor Andall
#168 - 2014-01-19 15:50:44 UTC
Blah blah CCP should stop investing in Dust, CCP should stop investing in World of Darkness they should invest more time, money, effort in EVE.

And then I take a look at 70% of the forum threads in General Discussion and wonder why they invest as much as they already do here.

You know why you get ESS, EVE playerbase? Because that's all you deserve.

I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?

19.08.2014 - Dinsdale gets slammed by CCP Falcon. Never forget.
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#169 - 2014-01-19 15:57:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.


DO IT!! There are people in highsec like me who would be willing to spend some time in Null *if* we thought it would be fun. Tidi/Blobs are not fun. Talk about free advertising? What woul dbe cooler video to see popping up on YouTube: 1 frame per 5 minutes or black screen, or 200 hundred ships flying and dodging, blowing up, and warping in and out? The huge huge Alliances are bad for the game. Too static, too limiting on freedom, and they monopolize resources in Null for the benefit of Alliance leadership (or so I've been told repeatedly).
Gal Mart
#170 - 2014-01-19 15:58:02 UTC
Maybe CCP can introduce a deployable that reduces tidi when onlined...
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#171 - 2014-01-19 16:00:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.....

and lots more....


Malcanis, you and I are seem to be finding more common ground these days.
But I also think you are missing the point here, or rather, not asking the right question.
While I completely agree that supercaps proliferation has reached a ludicrous level (would love to compare supercaps in the game compared to, say 3 years ago), I think the question to the cartels is:

"Would you still have the will and capabilities to bring 4000 ships to a fight, if supercap power projection was nerfed, and nerfed hard?"

If supercap power projection capabilities were nerfed hugely, would blob-sec be complaining about systems locking up not with 2000 subcaps and 2000 supercaps, but with 3600 subcaps, and 400 supercaps? I think that is the more important question.

Though the enormous wealth of the individual null sec player is insane (Read PL's Elsie Randoplh stating that the loss of 350 cfc/Russian Dreads is not a big deal), the real factor I see is the size of the coaltions, and the plethora of non-combat agreements in null sec. (I find it ironic that the goons announce a non-combat agreement with PL across so many regions, in the middle of yesterday's dust-up).

When BoB was the biggest fish in the pond, what percentage of the player base, or more precisely, the null sec base, did they represent?
When NC was at the top, what percentage did they represent?

We now have a situation where are only a few players in the sov arena now, and the only way you survive is being part of one of these super-coaltions.
Then we have the "content-generating, conflict-driving" agreements to protect everyone's PvE income.
Precisely how many "home" systems will CFC or PL ever lose now, or even have to actually defend, if the BOTLRD agreement is maintained?

The way I see it, throughout the history of the game, the participation percentage for a massive fight is pretty much the same. People have real lives, and stuff happens, especially on the weekend. But when you have such large bases to draw from given the size of these blue blanket groups, naturally they can field insane fleet sizes.

Consider this:
cfc/ russians are about 50,000 members, according to http://raynor.cl/coalition.php.
If they fielded 2700 pilots yesterday (according to the numbers I saw posted), that is a participation rate of 5.4%.
Yes, those membership numbers include a huge amount of supercap alts, and non-combat chars.
But bottom line, the actual participation rate was small.

Now, a couple years ago, a coalition of 10,000 were considered huge, and given the same participation rate, no group could even field 2,000 or 3,000 pilots. (2,000 pilots on one side was possible with a massive CTA to save your core systems, not a place like HED).

CCP has to have a long and hard look at not just supercap proliferation and power projection, but at the game mechanics of sov-space that encourage, nay, demand the meta-game mechanics we see now.

Of course, simply removing every goon ship from its hangars, zero'ing out the ISK balance of any account that ever had goon employment of any char, and wiping out every sov unit in every goon system would also go a long way to fixing the problem, but I kind of think CCP won't go with such an reasonable suggestion.

If CCP wants to encourage a more vibrant null sec and Eve, and by vibrant I mean MORE fighting, they have to find a way to limit the sizes of the blue blanket groups, so there are more independent groups. More groups = more friction.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#172 - 2014-01-19 16:04:05 UTC
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead.


That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support.

If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed.

But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kaminokage
Perkone
Caldari State
#173 - 2014-01-19 16:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaminokage
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Dear Malcanis,

You’re advertising EVE as a “ONE UNIVERSE” game. As a game with MASSIVE fleet battles. Asking for money for the service you cannot provide called: LYING. In general your hardware or software issues are not of our concern. If you can’t do something – don’t tell that you can and then sell it.

We are the ONE (0.0. alliances) who CREATE huge, massive events in your sandbox. We’re the best advertisement you can possibly get. Listen to us, invest in us – and you can get MUCH more in return.

I’ve been playing for many years and saw many wars, so I do know how the things work in EVE, but HED-GP battle was just too much. ~30% of my friends already canceled subscription after this battle. And believe me – it’s just the beginning.

If you won’t take anything from today’s fight, if you won’t start listening to your customers – you might get a second “Monocles/ micro transactions” situation. We love this game, but if nothing will be done, if our issues won’t be addressed – it might be time for us to leave…

Best regards,
kaminokage
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#174 - 2014-01-19 16:10:44 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.

So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.

I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.

Take this little game below:

You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and and adjacant node per turn.

The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.

The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.

to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.


(1) Not all fights are about sov. Eg: CSAAs, money moons.

(2) No one has yet managed to come up with an actual system that can't be gamed

(3) It does no good to take, say 2 obectives and fail two if what happens is that you lose 1/2 of your forces every time you fight, and the enemy loses a trivial amount in comparison because they outnumbered you 2:1 in the two fights they took. Eventually your pilots are going to get pretty unhappy with those odds and experiences, and your SRP is going to go bankrupt pretty fast.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#175 - 2014-01-19 16:11:57 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead.


That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support.

If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed.

But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be.


How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights?
I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.

But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#176 - 2014-01-19 16:12:48 UTC
Nice to see you guys are finally realizing that power projection is a problem. Blink
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#177 - 2014-01-19 16:13:49 UTC
Kaminokage wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Dear Malcanis,

You’re advertising EVE as a “ONE UNIVERSE” game. As a game with MASSIVE fleet battles. Asking for money for the service you cannot provide called: LYING. In general your hardware or software issues are not of our concern. If you can’t do something – don’t tell that you can and then sell it.

We are the ONE (0.0. alliances) who CREATE huge, massive events in your sandbox. We’re the best advertisement you can possibly get. Listen to us, invest in us – and you can get MUCH more in return.

I’ve been playing for many years and saw many wars, so I do know how the things work in EVE, but HED-GP battle was just too much. ~30% of my friends already canceled subscription after this battle. And believe me – it’s just the beginning.

If you won’t take anything from today’s fight, if you won’t start listening to your customers – you might get a second “Monocles/ micro transactions” situation. We love this game, but if nothing will be done, if our issues won’t be addressed – it might be time for us to leave…

Best regards,
kaminokage


Dear kaminokage,

You seem to be under the impression that I'm a part of CCP. I'm not. You're not my customer. I don't take your money.

I agree that HED- was an unacceptable experience for paying customers, and I'm proposing a solution. Just yelling FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT at CCP won't fix anything. If they could push a button to fix lag, they would have done so.

If we don't like the way things work, we have to propose changes.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2014-01-19 16:13:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead.


That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support.

If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed.

But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be.

Remember way back when EVE was young, there were less blocs, not only because of less subs, but because there was less reason to join them.

Blocs became more necessary because CCP added a crap load of inter-regional jumps making previously disconnected areas of space that were 100 jumps away 1 jump away. The closer your enemy is the more reason to be diplomatic.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#179 - 2014-01-19 16:15:17 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.


24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported.

Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings?

Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges!

Katrina Oniseki
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#180 - 2014-01-19 16:16:47 UTC
Kaminokage wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Dear Malcanis,

You’re advertising EVE as a “ONE UNIVERSE” game. As a game with MASSIVE fleet battles. Asking for money for the service you cannot provide called: LYING. In general your hardware or software issues are not of our concern. If you can’t do something – don’t tell that you can and then sell it.

We are the ONE (0.0. alliances) who CREATE huge, massive events in your sandbox. We’re the best advertisement you can possibly get. Listen to us, invest in us – and you can get MUCH more in return.

I’ve been playing for many years and saw many wars, so I do know how the things work in EVE, but HED-GP battle was just too much. ~30% of my friends already canceled subscription after this battle. And believe me – it’s just the beginning.

If you won’t take anything from today’s fight, if you won’t start listening to your customers – you might get a second “Monocles/ micro transactions” situation. We love this game, but if nothing will be done, if our issues won’t be addressed – it might be time for us to leave…

Best regards,
kaminokage


And if you leave, the problem eases, until newer players backfill your spot, and the next cycle starts up.
But yeah, I really wonder if mittens has not threatened CCP with, "you mess with our operations, I will get 10,000 null sec accounts to unsub, and not before we grief high sec so bad you lose another 20,000 high sec accounts".