EVE General Discussion

You could remove bridging all together and we will still move out fleets around. Bridging fleets around is not where the problems will null are.

And if I position myself properly, I can put my right hand in Colorado, my right foot in New Mexico, my left foot in Arizona, and my left hand in Utah. Or some rotation of the above.

That exactly what this post is about, actually.

The goal is to communicate changes BEFORE CCP puts work into them.
Because players can quickly point out issues , and missuses before CCP will spend $ on DEV work.

Look at the HAC thread.
In most cases people are stating that not the hulls them self but weapon systems are the issue.

Many have argued with Baltec but on this one, he is right.

The problem with Sov is, Sov. It's not the prize, it's the burden. You think Goons are rich as is, imagine how rich they would be if they didn't have all those sov bills.

And when I say rich, I don't mean just ISK. Picture the fleets they would have if they developed all their resources rather than sell them to pay Sov bills.

This is what gets lost by both the 'brilliant idea' people and the 'I want it now' people. The same people who were HAPPY to see Dominion because they thought "finally, SOV will make sense" lol.

What's always missing from these discussions is a simple understanding of human nature. It isn't some video game's territorial acquisition system at fault for the ills people complain about, it's the fact that even in a game people are people.

People will do whatever it takes to gain 'security', even if an 'insecure' situation is more fun in a game. And people won't fight over anything they can just buy, rent or negotiate for, even in a game where fighting is fun and the losses mean nothing. If the cost of cooperation is less than the cost of conflict, people will cooperate (ie form corps that form alliances that form coalitions the blue everyone in sight) even though conflict is more enjoyable.

And being that humans are social animals that congregate for safety, 'polarization' will always happen, whether it's CfC and N3PL in a video game or the Warsaw Pact vs Nato, Liberals vs Conservatives, Urban vs Rural, Black vs White, North vs South, Male vs Female, Rich vs Poor, Southpark vs the Simpsons, etc etc in real life.

A 'successful' SOV system (one that 'encourages conflict' and 'allows for smaller groups to compete') would be one that somehow successfully counters all these different aspects of human nature. In other words, it would be so Gerrymandered to death that it has no place in a sandbox game.

Improvements can be made to SOV, but people should be realistic about what outcomes are possible.

Because people totally want to pay $15 a month to be put on guard duty, right?

Having actually done guard duty in real life, I can tell you straight up that I would cease paying for EVE if guard duty ever became as necessary as some people think it should be to hold space.

Face facts. You don't get to be the Rebel Alliance. You don't get to hold other people at the mercy of your timezone, and you don't get to turn holding space into a goddamned job just to satisfy people who think they should for some flipping reason have an advantage because they're smaller.

This is untrue. "small organizations" disrupt bigger ones all the time in small ways. Just look at any global kill board and cross reference null systems where lots of rats are killed. Or hell, just go on EVE-kill and look up Thanatos loses lol. When i was in INIT, our null sec home constellation was camped a LOT and hot drops happened. Those mercenaries SHUT DOWN our ability to farm our null sec holdings.

IMO It has nothing to do with the power of small organizations, it has everything to do with the fact that when people DO disrupt your null groups grunt level pve activities, you just log in your high sec alt and keep going in safety. That's why this didn't work:

in other words, the key to a better null is to nerf high sec into the ground Ok, I'm kidding, but EVE is interconnected, as long as people can make good enough isk to survive via alts in 'safe' conditions, there is no reason for conflict in null (other than boredom) and no way a 'small organization' can have the kind of impact you desire.

Also, see how the 'problem' defies simple thinking and simple fixes. You made up your mind that you know what the problem is when in fact the problem is complex and none of us have a total grasp of it. I sure don't.

There is a sorta simple fix for null income vs highsec. Let us upgrade outposts with a mission agent mod.

While that is definitely a step in the right direction, it doesn't quite solve what Jenn was talking about.
To be frank, in order for null space to be valuable enough in ISK/hr potential to the line grunt; in order to justify defending the space then running null missions as opposed to just logging onto a highsec alt, nullsec missions would have to pay nearly an order of magnitude better than highsec. Now, that could be done with a balanced combination of nerfs to highsec missions and boosts to nullsec, but even going that route would result in wails of protest, gnashing of teeth, and Jesus Christ, Dinsdale and his ilk would have a field day. I'm not entirely sure I'm prepared for that level of sperg.
Now, of course, if/when we move to an occupancy sov system, that will no longer be the case, since you'd lose your space if you weren't using it. Until then, the above applies.