These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1161 - 2014-08-10 19:18:21 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Yes we can end it we just have disband the coalitions but we are not doing that.


And that isnt going to happen untill the need for those coalitions goes away.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1162 - 2014-08-10 19:20:54 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Falin Whalen wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
EVE is full.

Bullcrap! The good space in Null may be full I'll grant you that, but when an alliance has sov in a system where the only good thing to do in that system is plop down a moon harvesting array on the only money making moon in that system, since it is not worth upgrading because the truesec is shite, so it won't spawn the right kind of anomally, or enough of them, and even miners avoid the system because it won't spawn the right kind of ISK/Hour minerals, or enough belts to even start to upgrade it. That is ONE of the problems with null. Not that it is "full" which is patently false.

So you say the good space is full and the other space is not worth it.
There will be always bad and good space you can not change that and most of the time this is the buffer between the coalitions.
So you realy say EVE is full Big smile

What you might want is more PVP and hope to accomplish that by adding more people into null.
The problem is most people do not want to PVP all the time so adding more people to null will not help.
It also will not increase the fighting over limited ressources because we already done that .

Yes null is not as full as it could be in terms of player numbers but it is definitely in terms of systems and ressources.
You proved my point, thank you for that.

The only point that I proved is that adding more space that is 80% shite isn't going to solve anything. The big coalitions will just expand into the new space, and we are right back to where we are now. Shite null space needs to be useful for more than a buffer or because it has a money moon in it, someone/people should want to use it.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Snot Shot
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1163 - 2014-08-10 19:57:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Yes we can end it we just have disband the coalitions but we are not doing that.


And that isnt going to happen untill the need for those coalitions goes away.

Can you provide an example of what CCP could do for that to happen?

Twitter = @Snot_Shot  - “If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

evesnotshot.blogspot.com
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1164 - 2014-08-10 19:58:19 UTC
Coalitions were created when alliances were not enough to defend space in the escalation process.
You do not need them if there is enough space for everyone and this again proves my point

Maybe 80% of the systems are not great but you can make 100mil per h per account in them if you want.
I could do that, so I assume people do not want them for other reasons.
To my mind comes " We get SRP no need for ratting", "Ratting is boring" , "I don't rat in a pipe because of the gangs" and " I'm only in this game for PVP"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1165 - 2014-08-10 20:05:34 UTC
Snot Shot wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Yes we can end it we just have disband the coalitions but we are not doing that.


And that isnt going to happen untill the need for those coalitions goes away.

Can you provide an example of what CCP could do for that to happen?


Residency based sov. Remove the need to grind through hundreds of millions of HP in a handful of timed fights and you remove the need to have large fleets of caps the grind through those structures.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1166 - 2014-08-10 20:07:50 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Coalitions were created when alliances were not enough to defend space in the escalation process.
You do not need them if there is enough space for everyone and this again proves my point

Maybe 80% of the systems are not great but you can make 100mil per h per account in them if you want.
I could do that, so I assume people do not want them for other reasons.
To my mind comes " We get SRP no need for ratting", "Ratting is boring" , "I don't rat in a pipe because of the gangs" and " I'm only in this game for PVP"



you will not earn 100 mil in anoms in 80% of null systems. You will earn more in high sec blitzing level 3 missions in a mach.
Snot Shot
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1167 - 2014-08-10 20:11:52 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Coalitions were created when alliances were not enough to defend space in the escalation process.
You do not need them if there is enough space for everyone and this again proves my point

Maybe 80% of the systems are not great but you can make 100mil per h per account in them if you want.
I could do that, so I assume people do not want them for other reasons.
To my mind comes " We get SRP no need for ratting", "Ratting is boring" , "I don't rat in a pipe because of the gangs" and " I'm only in this game for PVP"


I suppose theres probably 10 reasons for coalitions existing, but the one I believe will still keep them together under your description is simply that they have grown to share an identity together and rely on that for defense against the NC/PL bogeymen.

PL and NCDot arent going away under any game mechanic change and therefore the CFC Coalition will always have a "reason" to exist. Doesnt matter how much space you create.

Twitter = @Snot_Shot  - “If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

evesnotshot.blogspot.com
Snot Shot
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1168 - 2014-08-10 20:12:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Snot Shot wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Yes we can end it we just have disband the coalitions but we are not doing that.


And that isnt going to happen untill the need for those coalitions goes away.

Can you provide an example of what CCP could do for that to happen?


Residency based sov. Remove the need to grind through hundreds of millions of HP in a handful of timed fights and you remove the need to have large fleets of caps the grind through those structures.

Bingo.

Twitter = @Snot_Shot  - “If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

evesnotshot.blogspot.com
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1169 - 2014-08-10 20:28:43 UTC
And how would that end the stagnation?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1170 - 2014-08-10 20:31:17 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
And how would that end the stagnation?


We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances.
Athryn Bellee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1171 - 2014-08-10 20:43:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
And how would that end the stagnation?


We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances.


I think occupancy or user based sov is a step in the right direction, but how does that stop any large group from imposing protection fees on another smaller group?

Let's say this change happens and alliances own the regions they actually operate in. Wouldn't a group like CFC or N3/PL just tell the little guys that they can keep their space so long as they pay protection fees and grant R64s to their overlords. They can't actually take the sov from them, but they can harass the smaller alliances enough that they aren't willing to live in nullsec anymore. Then we have smaller alliances holding sov, but in essence the system is still the same except it is harder to keep track of the various groups since the renters aren't under a large Alliance like PBLRD or B0T.

As long as there is functionally no cost for large groups to throw their capitals across the cluster the system will remain the same in function regardless of how it is delineated through in game alliances. We saw how easy it was for CFC to take out those titans that were incubating in their region.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1172 - 2014-08-10 20:50:37 UTC
Snot Shot wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Coalitions were created when alliances were not enough to defend space in the escalation process.
You do not need them if there is enough space for everyone and this again proves my point

Maybe 80% of the systems are not great but you can make 100mil per h per account in them if you want.
I could do that, so I assume people do not want them for other reasons.
To my mind comes " We get SRP no need for ratting", "Ratting is boring" , "I don't rat in a pipe because of the gangs" and " I'm only in this game for PVP"


I suppose theres probably 10 reasons for coalitions existing, but the one I believe will still keep them together under your description is simply that they have grown to share an identity together and rely on that for defense against the NC/PL bogeymen.

PL and NCDot arent going away under any game mechanic change and therefore the CFC Coalition will always have a "reason" to exist. Doesnt matter how much space you create.

A Snot Shot post I agree with! That's it, that's one of the signs of the apocalyps.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Asyrdin Harate
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1173 - 2014-08-10 20:51:42 UTC
doesn't occupancy based sov sort of removes the reason to fight? All you would technically have to do is sit in a system to take it...
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1174 - 2014-08-10 20:55:49 UTC
Athryn Bellee wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
And how would that end the stagnation?


We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances.


I think occupancy or user based sov is a step in the right direction, but how does that stop any large group from imposing protection fees on another smaller group?

Let's say this change happens and alliances own the regions they actually operate in. Wouldn't a group like CFC or N3/PL just tell the little guys that they can keep their space so long as they pay protection fees and grant R64s to their overlords. They can't actually take the sov from them, but they can harass the smaller alliances enough that they aren't willing to live in nullsec anymore. Then we have smaller alliances holding sov, but in essence the system is still the same except it is harder to keep track of the various groups since the renters aren't under a large Alliance like PBLRD or B0T.

As long as there is functionally no cost for large groups to throw their capitals across the cluster the system will remain the same in function regardless of how it is delineated through in game alliances. We saw how easy it was for CFC to take out those titans that were incubating in their region.

The word you are looking for is CONTENT. CONTENT is being created by N2/PL and CFC, also fights.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1175 - 2014-08-10 20:59:07 UTC
Athryn Bellee wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
And how would that end the stagnation?


We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances.


I think occupancy or user based sov is a step in the right direction, but how does that stop any large group from imposing protection fees on another smaller group?

Let's say this change happens and alliances own the regions they actually operate in. Wouldn't a group like CFC or N3/PL just tell the little guys that they can keep their space so long as they pay protection fees and grant R64s to their overlords. They can't actually take the sov from them, but they can harass the smaller alliances enough that they aren't willing to live in nullsec anymore. Then we have smaller alliances holding sov, but in essence the system is still the same except it is harder to keep track of the various groups since the renters aren't under a large Alliance like PBLRD or B0T.

As long as there is functionally no cost for large groups to throw their capitals across the cluster the system will remain the same in function regardless of how it is delineated through in game alliances. We saw how easy it was for CFC to take out those titans that were incubating in their region.



i would say remove pos and replace with modular pos idea where pos exist in dead space pockets and replace moon minning with a version of PI...

that way goons and pl cant just park thier poses at each r64 moon and protect them with the apex forces...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Athryn Bellee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1176 - 2014-08-10 21:05:07 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Athryn Bellee wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
And how would that end the stagnation?


We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances.


I think occupancy or user based sov is a step in the right direction, but how does that stop any large group from imposing protection fees on another smaller group?

Let's say this change happens and alliances own the regions they actually operate in. Wouldn't a group like CFC or N3/PL just tell the little guys that they can keep their space so long as they pay protection fees and grant R64s to their overlords. They can't actually take the sov from them, but they can harass the smaller alliances enough that they aren't willing to live in nullsec anymore. Then we have smaller alliances holding sov, but in essence the system is still the same except it is harder to keep track of the various groups since the renters aren't under a large Alliance like PBLRD or B0T.

As long as there is functionally no cost for large groups to throw their capitals across the cluster the system will remain the same in function regardless of how it is delineated through in game alliances. We saw how easy it was for CFC to take out those titans that were incubating in their region.

The word you are looking for is CONTENT. CONTENT is being created by N2/PL and CFC, also fights.



Super blobs are not content if the subcaps can't do anything about them. Then it is just bullying, plain and simple.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1177 - 2014-08-10 21:14:33 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
i would say remove pos and replace with modular pos idea where pos exist in dead space pockets and replace moon minning with a version of PI...

that way goons and pl cant just park thier poses at each r64 moon and protect them with the apex forces...

While moons are a source of income, they are not a source of fabulous wealth. A good R64 will net about 5 Bil. a month, for an alliance, the same can be generated by a single, good truesec, fully upgraded rating system at a tax rate of 15%. Also they will be good to fight over.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1178 - 2014-08-10 21:16:16 UTC
Athryn Bellee wrote:
Super blobs are not content if the subcaps can't do anything about them. Then it is just bullying, plain and simple.

Funny, that you and I agree on something.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Shalmon Aliatus
Bluestar Enterprises
The Craftsmen
#1179 - 2014-08-10 21:17:22 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
@ baltec
So we agree on that there are 2 superpowers left and that they will not kill each other.

The question is if this is a failure in game mechanic or is it natural?
I say it is natural.
To make my point let us take a view on the history of humanity.
In the middle of the 19 century we reached the point where we had all continents fully colonized. At the end of this colonization we had 6 nations USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan who wanted more.
For the next 50 years they fought some smaller wars and in the end it escalated in the 2 biggest and cruelest wars the world has ever seen. After that 2 coalitions were left one around the USSR the other around USA with a few states left in a block of states with no alignment.
At the end none could fight the other, but the critical threshold was the moment when there was enough personal, ressources and technolgy to colonize the world. The rest was just a change in distribution of the territory they had control over.

The same applies for EVE we had a colonization time, then we had smaller wars and it escalated to a number of bigger wars and in the end 2 coalitions are left.

I could tell the same story with companys but this is simpler to understand.

So I say this is the natural it is not the fault of CCP or the game mechanics they created.
We just hit the threshold and then we had 5 years of amazing battles.

@Sara Tosa
What baltec said is right we would lock down all gates to empire like we did when we had the cynojammer screen in 2006-2009.

So you can change the game mechanics which is the technology in this universe but it will not bring you below the escalation threshold. It will probaly make the universe less believable which would be sad.

EVE is full


USSR and USA didn't get a bigger earth to solve their problems and to make room for smaller powers.
So why do you want a bigger EVE ? Most of the space is unused (except for the purpose of putting the good systems out of jumprange from anything and moonmining ofc). I like the idea of a bigger EVE to make power projection a bit harder, but I don't like the point with new systems. They would just be claimed by the old blocks (if they have valuable moons or other stuff in them).
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#1180 - 2014-08-10 21:27:46 UTC
Yes the old blocks will claim some of the systems.
But if there are enough systems so they can not claim them all in 2years, then there is space for a new coalition to rise.
There are a lot of bored players in these coalitions who would leave them if there was a new challange.
These players who go away will be the reason for some alliances to disband.