EVE General Discussion

No, it just exposed how weak the theroies Jump Fatigue were.

The whole idea was basically this : "If you nerf 'big groups' ability to 'teleport' across the map, conflcits will become more regional, 'smaller groups' will be able to chalenge the bigger ones that can't zoom across the map, and 'more conflcits' overall will happen to compensate for the loss of B-R style mega fights".

Of course none of that has happened so far, mainly because it NEVER happens like that.


The jump fatigue system failed (so far) for the exact same reasons as the above (also why the SOV system has failed and become worse that the pos bashing system it replaced). They didn't take into account actual human nature. They didn't take into account the good aspects of the status quo (which is part of human nature, if some complex thing has some bad outcomes, people focus on that and ignore the good outcomes that come from the same coplex thing). And they didn't take into account the alternatives (in the case of the anom nerf, people just PVE'd in other places like Faction Warfare, High Sec Incursions, wormholes etc).

Hell, you can't create a system that keeps people from clashing and then complain that people arne't clashing with each other as much lol. It was not 'omg teleporting' that was keeping the 'small guys' out of null, it wa sthe fact that the small guys sucked at become big guys or weren't interested in that kind of game so they stayed in low sec in the 1st place.

This is not the 1st time that a CCP change meant to 'create more conflict' resulted in less conflict. It's what happens when you apply conventional wisdom to a complex issue. And 'nerf teleporting' did become conventional wisdom, championed even by prominent null sec personalities.

Some will say that we don't actually know how it will turn out because CCP hasn't made the promised SOV changes. Well, bookmark this here post, and when THAT doesn't work either (because the problem isn't the systems invovled, the the poor utopian assumptions of the thinking behind the systems that is flawed), we can come back here and talk about it

Well the word ''mate'' has drawn out at least a war once in eve history , so he could undock and just sart calling people mate on a 20 jump roadtrip.

Ideally, would be to make so that you can't have High ressources or ISK in High Sec. The fun comes from the interaction between the players. Where is it when tons of miners just go afk mining in High Sec, or other players doing missions interacting only with their NPC agent ?

The idea is to bring the competition out of safe space to everyone, by forcing low High Sec incomes.

So bring on the null-sov eating zombies for a while, and then send them away ..

Eh, this is demonstrably false. There are groups that have a strong effect in fac war sovereignty that couldn't have an effect on null sec sov. If the null sec sov system were changed to resemble the fac war system, those fac war groups would have a stronger effect.

We can even narrow the scope further: There were/are many groups who were less effective (or ineffective entirely) under the old fac war system who are thriving under the new one.

If we approach the limiting case were a single pilot can take sov in a system in 10 seconds, then such a system would certainly allow your proposed group to "take" sov.

My point is not to suggest such a sov system, but simply to point out that the train of thought that goes "If you can't do it under an existing system, you can't do it under any system" is utterly and completely flawed, wrong in every way.

The point is that the people who don't have the will to do a thing when it's doable probably won't have the will to do so even after you cater to them. People (like you) love to believe so, which is why CCP made change in the past with an eye towards this.

The problem wasn't the old sov system and it's pos bashing (which ccp 'fixed' with a reasonable system....that made things even worse), it was the people using the system. Same now, which is why the Jump Fatigue system doesn't do what CCP thought it would.

I know you want your conventional wisdom to work (people hold on to it like a crutch, because without this conventional wisdom, the world doesn't make sense, uncertainty is scary), but it just doesn't work that way.

It's not about conventional wisdom, if you implemented a sov system were one frigate could flip a system in 1 second, people would do it for the lulz if nothing else, and larger groups wouldn't be any more effective than smaller groups because 1 second to flip.

The point of such a ridiculous example set at the limit of possibility is not to say that something should be done, but that it can be done.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your sentiment that a new sov system won't fix many of the percieved wrongs of the current one. I agree that the people using the system are largely responsible for the current state of things.

My entire disagreement is with the notion that "If you can't do it under an existing system, you can't do it under any system," which is provably false. That specific argument is just not true - if you could flip any system in a second, none of the current power groups would be able to do a thing about it. And this example proves a simple point: yes the people obviously have an effect, but so too does the system. Ignoring one or the other will never give you the complete picture.

Stop calling the CFC blob when a single ship shows up.

Feel free to warDec my ELItE corp... So powerful Concord is under our control.

Spice must flow