These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3561 - 2015-03-09 01:53:41 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
davet517 wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you should have listened to the Metashow last night, where two of the leaders of the "apex stakeholders" raved about the principles of the new system, and talked about the bits they liked (you'll be surprised). They want a shake-up too, but not just any shake-up for the sake of it, they want one that is not utterly insane with large gaping holes that will be exploited to high heaven, oddly enough, by us.

I'm watching the suggestions that are being lobbied for out of TMC and elsewhere. Limit the ships that can contest sov. Narrow the primetime window. Whatever you do don't touch the safety net that is local. In short, make it less of a PITA to hold a big coalition together. No up and coming entity is going to be able to hold sov for long while the big coalitions stand. They have to bleed out before something can take their place. It's understandable that the prospect of them bleeding out is unattractive to those who built them, but I think the future of the game requires it.

As expected, an automatic grr coalitions response. You're in good company though, ccp seems to be thinking the same way

ccp's 0.0 vision must crush any other 0.0 dream, it is the only way to progess


I think there is no issue with coalitions like yours still existing, I personally would hate to see you guys fall as you bring in so much content, but what is needed is a vibrant small alliance battlefield, and please don't say low sec...


There are vibrant small alliance battlefields. They are called wormholes, low sec/faction warfare , High sec and NPC null.

In other words the entire rest of New Eden. Why people think every part of EVE must be the same is beyond me.

So you are affirming what many believe but won't say outright - Small alliances have no right to sov..
Well done

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3562 - 2015-03-09 02:33:09 UTC
davet517 wrote:
If the people attacking the big blocs are having more fun than those who huddle together for strength in numbers within them, the numbers will start bleeding away. These mechanics make it more possible, but people still have to choose to do it. Can they be socially engineered not to? Probably, and I'm sure some folks are pretty smug in thinking that they can. We'll see.

In a game, not knowing what's going to happen is certainly more interesting than knowing what's going to happen.

Oh yes. Moa at least has declared they will end our 0.0 nightmare. I think you, too, can get an interceptor or something and help make it happen

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 ?
Arrendis
TK Corp
#3563 - 2015-03-09 02:37:14 UTC
davet517 wrote:
Arrendis wrote:


There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills.


That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction.


No, they really don't. There's no course of action available to 'outsiders' that isn't available to bloc members. Only with more friends to help make sure they're successful.

It's great that you can cite Steve as an example, but it's just not true. Steve wasn't destroyed by 'some dude', it was destroyed by numbers - and numbers taking advantage of what even Molle acknowledged was a glitch.

If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.'

We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?'

Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3564 - 2015-03-09 02:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Arrendis wrote:
davet517 wrote:
Arrendis wrote:


There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills.


That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction.


No, they really don't. There's no course of action available to 'outsiders' that isn't available to bloc members. Only with more friends to help make sure they're successful.

It's great that you can cite Steve as an example, but it's just not true. Steve wasn't destroyed by 'some dude', it was destroyed by numbers - and numbers taking advantage of what even Molle acknowledged was a glitch.

If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.'

We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?'

Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us.

Alternatively, spin zone and we're actually huddling and afraid.

By which I actually just mean cfc because who would harass n3, the heroes which will save eve once nadot takes over all of null. SO actually they're eager anticipating free help from everyone else in eve, which will finally enable them to end the cfc's 0.0 nightmare

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3565 - 2015-03-09 02:51:48 UTC
And by nadot take over all space, I actually mean:

They give as much sov as their new friends want and wait for them to give up because it isn't worth it, then they can get it back from them, basically an "all you can eat until you are sick of it" sov.

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 ?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3566 - 2015-03-09 02:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Arrendis wrote:
davet517 wrote:
Arrendis wrote:


There will always be strength in numbers. There is literally nothing in these changes that even begins to threaten that. Mostly, what these changes might do is reduce our footprint, and reduce our sov bills.


That's what Cyvok thought. Maybe before your time. What threatens strength in numbers is losing the numbers. Strength in numbers feeds on itself. It's not hard to envision changes that would threaten numbers. They would be changes that make it more fun to attack a big coalition than it is to be in one. These changes certainly move in that direction.


No, they really don't. There's no course of action available to 'outsiders' that isn't available to bloc members. Only with more friends to help make sure they're successful.

It's great that you can cite Steve as an example, but it's just not true. Steve wasn't destroyed by 'some dude', it was destroyed by numbers - and numbers taking advantage of what even Molle acknowledged was a glitch.

If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.'

We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?'

Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us.

Alternatively, spin zone and we're actually huddling and afraid.

By which I actually just mean cfc because who would harass n3, the heroes which will save eve once nadot takes over all of null. SO actually they're eager anticipating free help from everyone else in eve, which will finally enable them to end the cfc's 0.0 nightmare

Please!!
You are as bad as each other LOL

I do agree though the window for "Prime Time" (what a horrible concept) should be variable.

I dabble with another game that has a fixed 2 hour prime time daily for battlestations - Prime time is great for the big clans with lots of allies but not so good for the small clans who can't have 50 members on at the right time.
NB; clan size is limited to 50 but you can have as many allies as you choose. So we have clans with 40 or 50 members with 20 or 30 allied clans, which has created a very uneven playing field.
Devs are asking for player suggestions as to how they want prime time because in its current form, it is just not working and has created stagnation.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3567 - 2015-03-09 03:16:01 UTC
Coalitions will die . . . or thrive.

Tears are being shed, or lapped up.

seriously, who cares? It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through. That first part where the goals were set out. NO WHERE in there was there any mention of the effect on specific alliances, coalitions, corps, or art appreciation societies.

Reminder of the Goals.

Quote:
Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved

Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems

Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.

Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.

Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.

Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load.

Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.


So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?

Does this plan address the goals properly?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3568 - 2015-03-09 03:25:58 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Coalitions will die . . . or thrive.

Tears are being shed, or lapped up.

seriously, who cares? It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through. That first part where the goals were set out. NO WHERE in there was there any mention of the effect on specific alliances, coalitions, corps, or art appreciation societies.

Reminder of the Goals.

Quote:
Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved

Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems

Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.

Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.

Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.

Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load.

Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.


So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?

Does this plan address the goals properly?

m

The stated goals are good but not achievable under the current proposal of changes.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3569 - 2015-03-09 03:34:46 UTC
Arrendis wrote:

If you're thinking the blocs will be huddling together in fear of subcap gangs, you really haven't been paying any attention to how they work. They'll be those subcap gangs, harrying each other, harrying the little guys, and still having enough manpower to do exactly what happens now: 'oh, look, a MOA gang is coming through. Let's form up harpies to kill them.'


No, I'm thinking that the blocks will get tired of having 50 timers to defend constantly. You are too, from the looks of the PR blitz. It's a reasonable downside of owning too much of the map.

Quote:
We don't just use supercaps, even today. And as it stands, these changes only allow a 4-hr window of vulnerability. 20 hours a day, those subcap gangs you're talking about will be pointless. And it's the blocs - it's PGL from N3, Mittens and xttz from our side, Grath and others in PL - who are offering up an idea of 'hey, why not make the window wider the less used the system is?'


Would be great if that's what you were proposing. To refresh your memory:

Quote:
At the lowest end of the scale, recently taken systems with little to no Military / Industrial activity would have a window of something like 8-12 hours. Long-standing systems with maxed indexes would only be vulnerable for 2-3 hours a day. Everything else would fall somewhere in between, depending how it was used on a day-to-day basis.


Recently taken systems ought to have a big vulnerability window... riiiiiiight. And of course, power-bloc central should only be vulnerable for a couple of hours.

The defensive multipliers are plenty of incentive to raise the indexes The window is fine, unless you want to take Manny's suggestion (Manny rocks) and make it 6. If you really want to make it fun, the "prime time" window shouldn't apply to starting the reinforced timer at all. It should only apply to the "capture event". To avoid the defender having to grind every time a timer gets set, just let the capture event straight up time out in a couple of hours and have everything go back to normal if nobody shows up to contest it.

Quote:
Do you really think we're doing that because we're huddling and afraid? We want null to be more fun. Fun is fun, even for us.


If I thought so, I would have said so, but that's not what I said. I said that right now, its more fun to belong to a massive coalition than to attack one. That needs to flip, if massive coalitions aren't going to continue to dominate.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#3570 - 2015-03-09 03:42:06 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Does this plan address the goals properly?

Maybe if you had bothered developing your reading comprehension you'd understand that what we've been saying amounts to "no, it ******* doesn't".
But you're not interested in a discussion, you just want to throw your tag around like some kind of authority.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3571 - 2015-03-09 03:50:06 UTC
Council of Eveoforums Trolling.

But it's fine really, it's just another entrant in the ling line of people who wholeheartedly agree our 0.0 nightmare will reach the end one way or another.

Note, however, the attempt to save face if it doesn't happen (as if "it wasn't intended to end your 0.0 dream") just in case somehow our 0.0 dream fails to be ended

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3572 - 2015-03-09 03:54:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.

But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare

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 ?
davet517
Raata Invicti
#3573 - 2015-03-09 04:29:14 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Mike Azariah wrote:


Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved

Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems

Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.

Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.

Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.

Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load.

Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.



#1 - Jury's out. The existing blocs have more than enough numbers to make any fight they care about a TIDI inducing game of chicken with trillions in assets on the field. Is that "fascinating"? Maybe, if you're impressed watching lots of pixels go boom slowly at great expense.

If it's a situation where there are many timers every day spread out so that the blocs can't cover them all with TIDI inducing super-blobs, and have to make choices, then it might get more interesting, with lots of little fights happening everywhere, and many entities vying for the upper hand.

#2 - Not really. It took us a little while to understand Dominion mechanics, but they are clear enough. This is clearer, but in some ways less clear. You can end up in situations now where the sov holder, the iHub owner, and the station owner could be different and potentially hostile entities.

#3 - Yes, I think it succeeds here. Since you don't have to grind structures, it will be a choice whether to escalate to bigger ships, not a necessity.

#4 - Yes. Weaponized boredom was a very good way to describe the current mechanics, and POS spam before them.

#5 - Yes, but. I can almost guarantee that you're going to have some poor souls who get tasked with grinding up indexes on alts in less desirable systems, not because they want to, but for the "greater good".

#6 - You at least got the server load part right. The largest entities in eve will have no trouble packing all of the systems in a constellation for a capture event that they care about, unless there are many happening at the same time. There won't be much in the way of geography based tactics unless the fight is relatively small.

#7 - Maybe, but will they? How long was FW around before it got a second pass?

Quote:
So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?


I don't think anyone enjoys grinding structures. The big fleet fights are probably as much fun now as they've ever been, without node crashes, desynchs and the like. They just aren't very accessible except to a select few. It's not like the days when Goons could tip the balance in the Russian's favor by showing up with 300 T-1 cruisers and lagging everyone out. Now you have to show up with hundreds of super--capitals, which you had to have sov in the first place to build and afford. That's a catch-22 that we need to find a way out of.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3574 - 2015-03-09 04:30:10 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Does this plan address the goals properly?

Maybe if you had bothered developing your reading comprehension you'd understand that what we've been saying amounts to "no, it ******* doesn't".
But you're not interested in a discussion, you just want to throw your tag around like some kind of authority.


So it missed on all 8 or is there a specific one that you really think missed the mark?

Waving the forum tag around, eh? No, I am trying to engage in a rational discussion. To get to the heart of the concerns and then take them up the ladder. A few have pointed out the lack of any official voice here (forgetting that it is the weekend and Fozzie has Monday to Friday job.

Yeah, I get that some of you are mad, even I with my limited reading skills can manage to figure that out. Thing is I am curious as to what part of the goals you think have been missed. Are you saying now is better than what is coming? Or do you disagree with the very goals themselves?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Arrendis
TK Corp
#3575 - 2015-03-09 04:31:05 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?

Does this plan address the goals properly?

m


First off, yes, I think the goals were good ones. I also think that in the long run, N+1 will always be the key to winning. It still is here: if I can put more people into your space to get the command nodes than you can, I'll win.

However...

Quote:
It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through.


No, it doesn't. See, we can all agree on the goals, and that's good. That's important. But the goals won't have an impact on the game nearly as much as the implementation of the goals will. And that's what we're discussing - with varying degrees of success in maintaining a polite conversation, perhaps, but it's what we're discussing: the implementation of those goals.

Another thing that matters is the perception of CCP listening to what's said here. For example:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Big smile


'Tomorrow' was 3 days ago. That was 2015-03-04 23:30. I get that the guy's traveling, and he just did EDU - but obviously, he's got internet access from Oz. Just a quick 'hey, yeah, sorry guys, I'm swamped, I'll get on this when I get back to Iceland' would be better than complete radio silence. Even you have to agree with that, Mike - you're the one he's left holding the ball.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3576 - 2015-03-09 04:35:42 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.

But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare

Not trying to be a smart A here, just curious.

Do you think Goons could withstand a prolonged attack from a single alliance of the same size and determination, without armies of allies (from either side) being needed?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#3577 - 2015-03-09 04:37:23 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yeah, our downfall which was supposed to happen due to fatigue... didn't happen. So much for that huh.

But I'm sure this time, yes this time it will be different. sovlasers will finally end our 0.0 nightmare. You can do it guys! You have the power!! in your highslot module, the sovlaser will finally burn away the nightmare



To be fair, it was your alliance and others doing most of the crying. Thread after thread of EVE is dying/ quitting EVE/ unsubbing forever rants.

And now they're doing it again with this.

Seriously guys! You know you are not going anywhere. You'll adapt and keep on keepin' on. Like we all have at one time or another over the course of the many changes over the years.

Far be it from me, though, to suggest you stop and think things through before pounding keys. Not just null blocks, of course. Anyone who feels the game is ruined for whatever reason is current that week.

Half the reason I'm still subbed after eight years is the sheer entertainment I get from reading the rage from quitters that never actually quit.

Mr Epeen Cool
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3578 - 2015-03-09 04:41:20 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
So I am asking you. Do you think the GOALS were good ones or did you like the antithesis, Did you enjoy grinding structures, N+1 being the key to winning, all of which we have right now?

Does this plan address the goals properly?

m


First off, yes, I think the goals were good ones. I also think that in the long run, N+1 will always be the key to winning. It still is here: if I can put more people into your space to get the command nodes than you can, I'll win.

However...

Quote:
It comes down to the part of the dev blog everybody skimmed through.


No, it doesn't. See, we can all agree on the goals, and that's good. That's important. But the goals won't have an impact on the game nearly as much as the implementation of the goals will. And that's what we're discussing - with varying degrees of success in maintaining a polite conversation, perhaps, but it's what we're discussing: the implementation of those goals.

Another thing that matters is the perception of CCP listening to what's said here. For example:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm gonna call it a night, but expect some of the first issue breakout threads tomorrow (we'll link to them from this thread) and try to leave me with a reasonable number of posts to catch up on in the morning ok? Big smile


'Tomorrow' was 3 days ago. That was 2015-03-04 23:30. I get that the guy's traveling, and he just did EDU - but obviously, he's got internet access from Oz. Just a quick 'hey, yeah, sorry guys, I'm swamped, I'll get on this when I get back to Iceland' would be better than complete radio silence. Even you have to agree with that, Mike - you're the one he's left holding the ball.

Not defending CCP Fumble (Fozzie) one bit. If he is still in Aus, chances are his internet is crap and he can't post Twisted

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#3579 - 2015-03-09 04:41:46 UTC
davet517 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


That's Malcanis' law. Jenn's law is "No matter how many times reality proves Malcanis' law is true, people, including professional game developers, will forget the past 11 seconds later, like big ass human shaped gold fish"


This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a.k.a learned helplessness. If it really is checkmate - the old and rich have the game by the nuts on a downhill pull, it's time to call it. Hand out trophies to the dozen people who "won Eve", wipe the server, and we can all start out in high sec belts in our frigs again. Knowing how it turned out this time, they can use some 20-20 hindsight starting at about RMR and make some different choices.

I don't think we're there yet. Whatever they do, the "blue donut" has to go. I think these changes are a step in the right direction. Removing the local crutch would help too. Pulling high end moons into the new mechanic by making them iHub dependent would be a huge help too. Null needs to get a lot more dangerous, and dynamic.

Malcanis' law is not an immutable law of the universe, unless the bulk of the player base believes that it is. If they believe that there's nothing that they can do, and they believe that whatever change occurs will only benefit the oligarchs, then yes, it's true. These mechanics invite a change to that thinking, but they don't require it. It'll be up to the players.


did you considered that the blue donut might just get bluer, and that in response to CCP's new mechanics well call it a day and jsut crush the attempted new entrants? and before you say butbutbut that will never happen, think again, we really are that vindictive. As an addition if were busy fighting every frig and cruiser that enters our space the big wars between the heavyweights just wont happen because were to busy crushing the new entrants. We have the organizational structures in place to ensure you never take a system as well, and are nto afraid to do it day in and day out even if its mindbogglingly boring and stupid. We keep it up for about 2 months guess what you will inevitably stop trying. The end result will be that when we eventually get around to invading each other (the 3 coalitions), we will compeltly **** over each others space and reset most of our sov, but you still wont be able to take it.

All this does is remove the incentive for the big boys to fight when what you want is the big boys to spend so much time fighting each other that they don't have time to fight you the little guy. Phoebe ironically did the same thing. There have been no wars of significance since phoebe purely because of this.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#3580 - 2015-03-09 04:48:42 UTC
At least they nerfed the sov structure health. Made creating lots of timers for a small group easier, eh

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 ?