These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Null Deal: A Statement from Sovereign Nullsec

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#801 - 2014-10-04 12:26:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Deck Cadelanne wrote:


Maybe a simplistic question, but given the history of CFC itself, why would anyone assume that it is somehow immune to change?

I would note that I fly down through Goon space a lot, even right through the heart of Fountain from time to time, and 90% of those systems are empty, as in not a single pilot in local, 90% of the time. Your claim seems to have little factual basis based on simple observation.


The power projection nerf wont have much impact due to the way we operate. We have a vast subcap fleet which will not be badly impacted by this and it is deployed in sigs across our space so we can deploy a fleet or three to any attempt upon our sov/assets rather quickly.


OK, but doesn't this suggest that the nature of warfare and conflict is likely to become more dynamic because of the changes? If an attacker doesn't have to worry about being instantly hot-dropped by a massive capital fleet when they decide to attack some remote system and in fact could even plan blockades/ambushes on the approaches to counter said "vast subcap fleet" trying to get there, that will change the strategic balance. Perhaps in a major way.

Surely, that's a good thing?

In fact, if these changes will have no impact on your space tyranny at all, as you suggest, why then is there any problem with them?

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson
Hemmo Paskiainen
#802 - 2014-10-04 13:35:03 UTC
My proposed idea of adding more npc space in certain regions, got trilled away back in 2011, just say'ng. Just like faster warps, tech effect warnings, and a gazillion other **** like that. How's your 'life' now in mommies basement LolLol

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#803 - 2014-10-05 06:30:24 UTC
Deck Cadelanne wrote:


OK, but doesn't this suggest that the nature of warfare and conflict is likely to become more dynamic because of the changes? If an attacker doesn't have to worry about being instantly hot-dropped by a massive capital fleet when they decide to attack some remote system and in fact could even plan blockades/ambushes on the approaches to counter said "vast subcap fleet" trying to get there, that will change the strategic balance. Perhaps in a major way.

Surely, that's a good thing?

In fact, if these changes will have no impact on your space tyranny at all, as you suggest, why then is there any problem with them?


Oh things will change. Expect new and interesting uses for capitals.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#804 - 2014-10-06 10:15:16 UTC
The motivation behind this is utterly, utterly ********.

Nothing that's being asked for is out-with the reach of the alliances/coalitions currently. They CHOSE to play the game this way. They have escalated every situation into a total cluster f*ck. CCP are basically having to change the game to make it harder to do anything on a fleet level because people have jumped into a pentagon of power and will bludgeon anything that is not allied to one of these power blocks.

Changing sov mechanics doesn't fix the underlying Humans who play the game - and it's nothing short of pretentious for these people in the community to claim to know whats best - The old adage of "actions speak louder than words" would go a long way here.