These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Gevlon's Second Doozie

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#341 - 2014-10-18 05:34:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Regnag Leppod wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

The gist here is that because null space is a desert and not worth fighting for,


Which is why there are thousands of empty systems with no renters paying billions of isk per month, right?


Just because people rent it doesnt mean its good.

No, it just means there are people willing to pay billions of isk per month for the privilege of living there. Personally, I think CCP sees this one simple fact and thinks you're all full of self serving sh*t every time you ask them to buff isk-making in null.


So you're saying that you don't understand the concept of releative value. Most of null is ONLY valuable as rental space because null sov holding pve types can get less out of it than less skilled/experienced/monied.

In other words, Null is fine for the newish guys in the oracles doing forsaken hubs, because that same oracale can't do most other high end PVE. It's also ok for the solo carrier guy who can rat aligned and prefers the liquid isk of anoms to the LPs of lvl 5 missions.

But the null sec guy who can afford 3 carriers is better off blitzing lvl 5s for 3-400 mil an hour, or buying a 5 bil isk Vindicator or mach and running incursions with ISN or TVP elite and making up to 180 mil an hour. Null sec pve can't match the isk making possibilities of higher end activities (inclduing top end wormhole content and faction warfare missions, not to mention blitzable high sec lvl 4s for SOe and mission farming the best missions for up to 7 days).

This wasn't as true before the various anom nerfs (the 1st one tied anom type spawning to truesec, the second one added frigs to forsaken hubs, and various other nerfs impacted null isk making as well like the heavy missile nerf, the TE nerf and the bounty nerf that came with the ESS). But now it is, so now alliances hold a few ratting systems for members and rent the rest out, because that's all it's good for.

Of course you will dismiss what I'm telling you because you are looking for a reason to dismiss it. That's fine, not everyone is interested in the truth or even observable reality. I'm sure we'll be able to revist the issue in a few months lol.



Fine, let's accept your premise. Eve's population is currently not experiencing particularly strong growth. The amount of renters in nullsec, month by month, is increasing. Explain that. If anything, under your premise the amount of renters in null should be decreasing given that there isn't an influx of new players and existing renters are always gaining isk and SP. As they become able to do the "better" hisec activities, they should be flocking to hisec in droves. But they aren't.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#342 - 2014-10-18 06:13:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
PotatoOverdose wrote:




Fine, let's accept your premise. Eve's population is currently not experiencing particularly strong growth. The amount of renters in nullsec, month by month, is increasing. Explain that. If anything, under your premise the amount of renters in null should be decreasing given that there isn't an influx of new players and existing renters are always gaining isk and SP. As they become able to do the "better" hisec activities, they should be flocking to hisec in droves. But they aren't.



How do you kwow they aren't? And before you can even suggest that they aren't, you'd have to know where the SP line is, and then discern whether the individual pilot is even smart enough to know about better ways to make isk (a look at the missions and complexes forum will give you a clue).

The real fact here is that you honestly don't know what you're talking about and are grasping at straws to deny what people who do know are trying to tell you. No big deal, in my case I'll simply let you learn by observing the next few months, since 5 year old dev blogs (and the observable null sec that exists after the changes described in those dev blogs) that prove what we're telling you don't seem sufficient.
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#343 - 2014-10-18 23:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Paynus Maiassus
Captain Jazzmag wrote:

There is a consensus that occupancy Sov is the way forwards by the people that live there, the same people who called for a tech nerf, the same people that owned the tech moons.

The people generally against the occupancy Sov system are: a) People who don't live or will never live in Sov but have to give an opinion anyway and don't want that to be the same as a Goon, even though it make sense b) People who see a CFC alliance next to the name of the person advocating it and automatically assume that there is an ulterior motive.

Occupancy Sov, as a concept, is fairly sound. If done correctly - this is CCP remember - it will force organisations to contract into smaller areas because those which are barely used become indefensible. In turn new people move into those areas and you end up with city states which smaller organisations can hold because they use the space.

The danger comes not in the concept but in the execution by CCP. If they were to say tie occupancy to the number of pilots in system in the last day only it would be easy for a large organisation to steam roll in, sit in system for a day meaning its easier for them to take. If they were to base on a series of metrics across general usage over a period of time, says a month, it gives the smaller organisation a strong base with which to defend. This is then tied into structure EHP, timers and possibly later down the line core systems in regions and constellations i.e. capital systems.

There are dangers and caveats to all of this, however the concept of occupancy is quite sound over the current systems. It's up to CCP to implement.


I think a better approach to sov is just to make the fighting for sov more streamlined and fun. I think that's the real issue with the sov mechanics. In terms of breaking down the coalitions and giving room to smaller groups I am not really convinced it's in changed sov mechanics. I think they way to kill the blue donut is to nerf travel (it's happening), and nerf some ships, like carriers (well maybe not nerf them, but change them so that their triage logi role is their main role and remove them as a 'counter to everything'.)

I also think the blob needs to be nerfed. The more people orbiting the FC the higher everyone's sig radius gets. Maybe leave the strategic thinking up to the fleet FC, but push issues of movement, target calling, etc. down to the squad leader level or even the individual pilot level. No more 200 Archons of 5 players and their 50 ISBoxed alts teleporting across the map to ruin anything and everything. No more 1 thinking player and 500 F1 mashers.

Also, combat logistics needs to be changed. FearlessLittleToaster (a Goon even) recommended a module for tacklers that interrupts logi. Other ideas include a stacking penalty for logi. Basically, big fights for years now have been a matter of assembling a blob of F1 mashers that can deliver an alpha strong enough to break logi. This has gotten stale.

Basically, I think the way to get rid of null stagnation has more to do with the way ships move and fight and fleets communicate, move, and fight than it does with a particular sov mechanic. I think adjustments to sov should be more in the realm of lightening up some of the resource collection and industry restrictions (they already removed the PI restriction on being in the sov alliance), reducing the number of timers in sov fights, changing system upgrades to something less annoying, etc.

If you want occupancy sov, I really can't think of a set of bonuses that could be given to a small group that lives in their system that is really going to give that small group any kind of advantage in defending sov that will make them a worthy defender against a fleet of 50 Pandemic Legion supercarriers. On the other hand, I DO see occupancy sov giving a set of bonuses to a fleet of 50 PL supercarriers that will make them all but invincible even against a CFC wrecking ball.

What we want to do with mechanics is level the field to give the little guys a chance. Frankly, occupancy sov isn't going to help anyone but Brave and Goons. Occupancy sov is going to help the big groups that have a lot of peeps to push around. Not little groups that need to get ahead through perfect use of their available pilots. That being said, there's lots of ways to kill the blue donut and break up the coalitions that don't involve occupancy sov. The cap travel nerf is one. There's tons more. I agree that mechanics need to change. But the more I think about it, occupancy sov is NOT the way of the future.
somedudeinaship
Star Whorz
#344 - 2014-10-19 02:02:48 UTC
I say anything that mixes it up, rips apart any idea of safety due to familiarity, and removes the idea of comfy cozy nullbear rental space is a wonderful thing.

EVE is supposed to be scary from what I understand.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#345 - 2014-10-19 02:09:43 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:

I also think the blob needs to be nerfed.


In a game like this, where there is no individual piloting skill that really matters in a large fight, the only two primary force multipliers are numbers and pricetag. And idk about you, but I view pricetag as the far worse of the two options.

Significantly superior numbers will, and should, prevail in most cases. Especially long term.

Now, in regards to giving smaller fleets and smaller groups more incentive to participate, you are correct that logi has to be seriously nerfed. Logi right now, unless you have a critical mass of numbers able to break their reps, allows a larger fleet to finish a fight relatively if not completely unharmed.

There is no "go down fighting", your choices are to either not take the fight at all or to whelp into their fleet uselessly.

Logi is THE problem with large scale combat balance, which is a problem that bleeds into literally everything else about nullsec and much of the rest of the game. And it's because it is both superior in terms of overall output numbers compared to a pilot in a dps ship, and because it is infinitely stacking and infinitely sustainable.

My position has been for a while now that the sustainability should be attacked.

Quote:

What we want to do with mechanics is level the field to give the little guys a chance.


Why?

Quote:

Frankly, occupancy sov isn't going to help anyone but Brave and Goons.


The two groups that actually use and want to use their space. Sounds fine to me.


Quote:

Occupancy sov is going to help the big groups that have a lot of peeps to push around.


Literally anything you do will favor larger groups over smaller ones short of imposing immersion breaking and arbitrary combat penalties. In which case people will just bring the maximum amount allowed and you have accomplished nothing anyway.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#346 - 2014-10-19 02:31:33 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
200 Archons of 5 players and their 50 ISBoxed alts teleporting across the map to ruin anything and everything

That's interesting...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#347 - 2014-10-19 16:40:17 UTC
somedudeinaship wrote:
I say anything that mixes it up, rips apart any idea of safety due to familiarity, and removes the idea of comfy cozy nullbear rental space is a wonderful thing.

EVE is supposed to be scary from what I understand.



Eve is only scary for the newer players. You know, the ones the null bears want to keep around to blow up for giggles. No one in null sec wants anything remotely akin to challenge or risk.

Null-sec is the new high-sec. CCP should just give it the high-sec rule set and thank the null groups for cleaning it up.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#348 - 2014-10-19 19:00:56 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
somedudeinaship wrote:
I say anything that mixes it up, rips apart any idea of safety due to familiarity, and removes the idea of comfy cozy nullbear rental space is a wonderful thing.

EVE is supposed to be scary from what I understand.



Eve is only scary for the newer players. You know, the ones the null bears want to keep around to blow up for giggles. No one in null sec wants anything remotely akin to challenge or risk.

Null-sec is the new high-sec. CCP should just give it the high-sec rule set and thank the null groups for cleaning it up.


Yet they still cry for nerfs when they lose a ship. And where do they go for there, so called, 'PVP'.
Solecist Project
#349 - 2014-10-19 19:06:08 UTC
CONCORD mechanics for nullsec ...
... where criminal activity gets declared by the owners ...
... and offenders create a beacon on the overview for everyone visible.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#350 - 2014-10-20 04:17:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
I'm simply going to restate Ranger 1's golden rule.

The larger a territory gets the more lucrative it should be for those that occupy it, but also the harder and more costly it should be to defend.

Conversely a small territory should provide only a modest income, but be much easier to maintain and defend.

This gives motivation and a tool set to groups that wish to own large territories as well as those that wish to tear them down and take a piece for themselves.

I see sharply limiting the mobility of the biggest and costliest weapons in the game to be a first big step in this direction... one that also needs to be followed up with changes/buffs to resource distribution and quantity, as well as industrial capabilities in Null.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Lucrii Dei
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#351 - 2014-10-20 10:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucrii Dei
Trii Seo wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Trii Seo wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Trii Seo wrote:
Most of his statistical data is misused, it's selectively presented in a light that makes it fit and support the thesis. And, just like a tabloid, he uses the claim of 'data' (misrepresented data, but DATA) backing him up to fool people into thinking it's all legitimate.
I never read his blog before and considered him a nutjob.

Do you have any proof that makes your words more believeable than his?


Off the top of my hat? He claimed that Powerpoint Coalition was an independent pirate group focused solely on disrupting ratters. While even the powerpoint itself outlined "sov targets and moons" as one of the major goals of their campaign.

He also mixes up terminology - a good instance would be chalking every case of a CFC present on a CFC killmail as an Awox, then claiming "rampant awoxing" among our ranks. Most of those "Awoxes" feature battleships hitting each other with smartbombs (especially when ratting - then they do rack up a significant amount of damage over time which winds up on the lossmail. The smartbomb damage in those cases especially is not a big factor due to hardener setups).

Finally, his method of "filtering" (de-whoring) killmails is very much flawed as it does not present the whole picture of a killmail. Many ships vital to a kill don't even register using that method (HICs on a super - it's pretty normal for a super to be tackled by hictors, but most of the time hictors don't fit guns. Their infinipoints, if used, register for 0.0% damage so by his logic - they don't register. Similar situation for logistics and ECM.)

(EDIT: I could go on - probably write my own blog about how Gevlon is wrong about a lot of things. But those are just a few things I came up with off the top of my amazing hat.)
Interesting read.

Still, he adresses some points in his latest entry that do make sense.
He talks about how people work ... and it fits. It does not have to have a lot of ground in reality,
but what he says makes an awfull lot of sense, in regards to human beings at least.

And when he talks about killmails that show people working together ...
... when they most probably should fight instead ...
... that's not really dismissable either, no?


And whatever people say about TMC.com (i read it sometimes) it is not dismissable either
that TMC profits from increased PLEX sales ... so whoever runs TMC profits with it.


And I really have no reason to believe that alliance leaders aren't trying to bank in one way or the other,
with some doing things that are more questionable than others. Humans simply are humans and
there's no conspiracy behind that.



It's dots ... and some of these dots make sense when fit together.


I'd like to know more, please?


There's historical evidence of alliance leaders being involved in RMT, that is true - however, it is not something that ends well and in case of being discovered by CCP can crush your alliance. In the case of TMC, I might be mistaken but their revenue comes from ads - it is the same in case of EN24. Of course, we won't hear a bad word about EN24 because it publishes his articles - at tends to be as grr goons as he is.

Most of what makes it to his blog is an the voice of an echo chamber filled with people that have little understanding of how a coalition works, or why was it formed in the first place. By forming your opinion solely on news pieces about big battles and Gevlon Goblin, it's very easy to get a grotesque image that's very far from reality.

People work with each other, yes - coalitions have been around since before the CFC years (BoB + GBC, RSF, DRF) and will be even after we're no more.

The CFC, within itself, is a massive diplomatic and logistical effort. Building a space empire, to my knowledge, is a bit harder than two space-cavemen meeting each other on a hill and declaring "You blue now." "You blue too. Let's go bash mammoth.". Members of a coalition are diverse in their culture and internal conflict is not uncommon. Situations can spiral out of control, leading to alliance purges, unforeseen failcascades and full blown wars - as the case has been with TEST and the HBC.

I'd agree that the political situation at this moment is very stale - however, jump changes are unlikely to change it and if they do it won't be for the better. Coalitions will become much more entrenched than they used to be.

Some points he makes have merit - like impacting on alliance morale by killing ratters and denying income. It's also nothing new, seeing as it's been done for years by the coalitions and smaller entities alike. However, while the base point is valid and makes sense (fear of loss is a very human thing indeed) the rest is just propaganda drivel that fails to even register things like "disposable income".


Someone who's flying in an entity that has an SRP funded by renters has no fear of losing anything. The biggest groups have far too much "disposable income".

╔═══ ♥ ═════════════╗

EVEcandy™; An EVE Gallery!

╚══════════════ ♥ ══╝
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#352 - 2014-10-20 18:35:10 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'm simply going to restate Ranger 1's golden rule.

The larger a territory gets the more lucrative it should be for those that occupy it, but also the harder and more costly it should be to defend.

Conversely a small territory should provide only a modest income, but be much easier to maintain and defend.

This gives motivation and a tool set to groups that wish to own large territories as well as those that wish to tear them down and take a piece for themselves.

I see sharply limiting the mobility of the biggest and costliest weapons in the game to be a first big step in this direction... one that also needs to be followed up with changes/buffs to resource distribution and quantity, as well as industrial capabilities in Null.


I could go for concepts like this with the addition that occupancy sov mechanics should be limited in scope. They can make some things a bit harder or more difficult, but occupancy sov mechanics should not be game changers in and of themselves. While I am getting to be less of a fan of occupancy sov, they could flavor the game in the right direction as long as they are not too extreme. But the most important thing about what you said is the relation of wealth to territory. The Goons seem to want an occupancy sov that will work in their favor more than for anyone else as well as an increase in wealth per amount of territory. Making it so that a group is harder to unseat the more it consolidates in combination with an ability to generate vastly greater wealth in a tiny consolidated territory will kill the game. At least for everyone but the goons, who basically seem to want lolPVP as Gevlon calls it in order to make more noobs happy in order to fund Mittens' lifestyle.

Adding 'terrain' elements to the game where certain pieces of terrain are harder or easier to take would broaden the tactical scope of the game. This is something CCP should do. Certain systems being harder or easier to take or defend is a definite go. Making player activity a factor in 'terrain' is something that CCP should CONSIDER, and with a limited role. Sure you can beef up a defense by bringing in combat engineers to defilade your tanks, but sorry, no amount of player activity should be able to turn a rainforest in the Andes into a central Asian plain.

And definitely, no matter what kind of terrain variety CCP introduces, whether occupancy based or not, the wealth generation of individual systems should NOT be increased.
Captain Jazzmag
No Hot Ashes
#353 - 2014-10-20 19:01:39 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Captain Jazzmag wrote:

There is a consensus that occupancy Sov is the way forwards by the people that live there, the same people who called for a tech nerf, the same people that owned the tech moons.

The people generally against the occupancy Sov system are: a) People who don't live or will never live in Sov but have to give an opinion anyway and don't want that to be the same as a Goon, even though it make sense b) People who see a CFC alliance next to the name of the person advocating it and automatically assume that there is an ulterior motive.

Occupancy Sov, as a concept, is fairly sound. If done correctly - this is CCP remember - it will force organisations to contract into smaller areas because those which are barely used become indefensible. In turn new people move into those areas and you end up with city states which smaller organisations can hold because they use the space.

The danger comes not in the concept but in the execution by CCP. If they were to say tie occupancy to the number of pilots in system in the last day only it would be easy for a large organisation to steam roll in, sit in system for a day meaning its easier for them to take. If they were to base on a series of metrics across general usage over a period of time, says a month, it gives the smaller organisation a strong base with which to defend. This is then tied into structure EHP, timers and possibly later down the line core systems in regions and constellations i.e. capital systems.

There are dangers and caveats to all of this, however the concept of occupancy is quite sound over the current systems. It's up to CCP to implement.


I think a better approach to sov is just to make the fighting for sov more streamlined and fun. I think that's the real issue with the sov mechanics. In terms of breaking down the coalitions and giving room to smaller groups I am not really convinced it's in changed sov mechanics. I think they way to kill the blue donut is to nerf travel (it's happening), and nerf some ships, like carriers (well maybe not nerf them, but change them so that their triage logi role is their main role and remove them as a 'counter to everything'.)

I also think the blob needs to be nerfed. The more people orbiting the FC the higher everyone's sig radius gets. Maybe leave the strategic thinking up to the fleet FC, but push issues of movement, target calling, etc. down to the squad leader level or even the individual pilot level. No more 200 Archons of 5 players and their 50 ISBoxed alts teleporting across the map to ruin anything and everything. No more 1 thinking player and 500 F1 mashers.

Also, combat logistics needs to be changed. FearlessLittleToaster (a Goon even) recommended a module for tacklers that interrupts logi. Other ideas include a stacking penalty for logi. Basically, big fights for years now have been a matter of assembling a blob of F1 mashers that can deliver an alpha strong enough to break logi. This has gotten stale.

Basically, I think the way to get rid of null stagnation has more to do with the way ships move and fight and fleets communicate, move, and fight than it does with a particular sov mechanic. I think adjustments to sov should be more in the realm of lightening up some of the resource collection and industry restrictions (they already removed the PI restriction on being in the sov alliance), reducing the number of timers in sov fights, changing system upgrades to something less annoying, etc.

If you want occupancy sov, I really can't think of a set of bonuses that could be given to a small group that lives in their system that is really going to give that small group any kind of advantage in defending sov that will make them a worthy defender against a fleet of 50 Pandemic Legion supercarriers. On the other hand, I DO see occupancy sov giving a set of bonuses to a fleet of 50 PL supercarriers that will make them all but invincible even against a CFC wrecking ball.

What we want to do with mechanics is level the field to give the little guys a chance. Frankly, occupancy sov isn't going to help anyone but Brave and Goons. Occupancy sov is going to help the big groups that have a lot of peeps to push around. Not little groups that need to get ahead through perfect use of their available pilots. That being said, there's lots of ways to kill the blue donut and break up the coalitions that don't involve occupancy sov. The cap travel nerf is one. There's tons more. I agree that mechanics need to change. But the more I think about it, occupancy sov is NOT the way of the future.


Ewar is the counter to logi. It works but so few try it. The blob is a result of what's required to win. Change the dynamics of sov and what is needed to take and hold it and you change the blob. It's also worth bearing in mind that many people like a good fight with 500 or so players. While it needs lots of F1, it also needs lots specialist ships which are fun to fly in bigger engagements. Flying a multi billion faction fit strat cruiser on the edge of rep range next to an enemy fleet is fun. Don't take away my fun because it's not considered elite. Not that many who think they're elite actually are. They're just bad at making freinds.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#354 - 2014-10-20 20:59:06 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'm simply going to restate Ranger 1's golden rule.

The larger a territory gets the more lucrative it should be for those that occupy it, but also the harder and more costly it should be to defend.

Conversely a small territory should provide only a modest income, but be much easier to maintain and defend.

This gives motivation and a tool set to groups that wish to own large territories as well as those that wish to tear them down and take a piece for themselves.

I see sharply limiting the mobility of the biggest and costliest weapons in the game to be a first big step in this direction... one that also needs to be followed up with changes/buffs to resource distribution and quantity, as well as industrial capabilities in Null.


I could go for concepts like this with the addition that occupancy sov mechanics should be limited in scope. They can make some things a bit harder or more difficult, but occupancy sov mechanics should not be game changers in and of themselves. While I am getting to be less of a fan of occupancy sov, they could flavor the game in the right direction as long as they are not too extreme. But the most important thing about what you said is the relation of wealth to territory. The Goons seem to want an occupancy sov that will work in their favor more than for anyone else as well as an increase in wealth per amount of territory. Making it so that a group is harder to unseat the more it consolidates in combination with an ability to generate vastly greater wealth in a tiny consolidated territory will kill the game. At least for everyone but the goons, who basically seem to want lolPVP as Gevlon calls it in order to make more noobs happy in order to fund Mittens' lifestyle.

Adding 'terrain' elements to the game where certain pieces of terrain are harder or easier to take would broaden the tactical scope of the game. This is something CCP should do. Certain systems being harder or easier to take or defend is a definite go. Making player activity a factor in 'terrain' is something that CCP should CONSIDER, and with a limited role. Sure you can beef up a defense by bringing in combat engineers to defilade your tanks, but sorry, no amount of player activity should be able to turn a rainforest in the Andes into a central Asian plain.

And definitely, no matter what kind of terrain variety CCP introduces, whether occupancy based or not, the wealth generation of individual systems should NOT be increased.

We'll need to see what else is in the pipeline before we can split hairs too finely.
I have absolutely no problem with Goons (or anyone else) having very lucrative territory... as long as that territory geometrically becomes more difficult for them to effectively maintain and/or defend. At some point it should become impossible for them to maintain and/or defend it, and huge amounts of assets should be at serious risk.

Goons are extremely large, and they are incredibly organized in their logistics (Region Command has a lot to do with that). They deserve to be able to maintain a large and lucrative territory. But even they should start to experience serious difficulties in doing so the larger their territory becomes.

The trick from a game mechanic perspective is to achieve this goal in a manner that can't be sidestepped by simply splitting one large group into many smaller groups (or territories) that have essentially the same command structure. Difficult yes, impossible no.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#355 - 2014-10-21 04:42:11 UTC
Captain Jazzmag wrote:


Ewar is the counter to logi. It works but so few try it.



ECM was retired from everyones fleets because it doesn't work. Damps only work if you have an entire secondary fleet dedicated to it and losses will be high so its not viable for anyone other than the likes of the CFC.