Player Features and Ideas Discussion

That's evidence of when I've hurt someone enough in the Butt Parts that they have to start sniping from the sidelines. Though said butt hurt was not my intention, it is welcomed nonetheless.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. I have no control over any blue list. You are conflating me with my alliance, i am an individual and Im talking practical reality.

I'm supposed to tell 30 to 100 other people "hey dawgs, I know we were gonna titan jump to save 17 jumps because 17 jumps ain't fun, but lets take gates instead and kill all the allies that help us withstand the LEGIONS of CfC that exist, because a guy on the forum thinks it's a good idea.

If the 30 to 100 other people in your alliance were still using circa 2009 HML Drakes as a major doctrine and getting their butts handed to them daily because they refused to adapt to current reality, wouldn't you say something? Or, at the very least, consider leaving them* to find folks who had better adapted to the new landscape? Because not adapting to the jump fatigue changes really does make just that much sense.

That's the practical reality here.


*That's what I was talking about re: your blues list. I know you can't control your alliance's blues list, but you can control which alliance you are in.

No but you are supposed to make a decision if you want to be part of an alliance that makes CTA which generate 30 days of fatigue. You want more freedom, then go in an alliance that offers that instead of one that kills it by CTAing you into 30 days of fatigue madness.

I mean you came up with a rather good solution to afk cloaking ships to keep doing sites/whatever but can't come up with a solution to the problem "My alliance is inflating my jump fatigue to insane level".

One of the great things about eve your actions have consequences take this as a lesson and don't go jump crazy


fly safe, fly smart

Was that the intent? If so, I'm going to suggest everyone will be disappointed. Even if null sec totally Balkanized there is nothing stopping the formation of coalitions where we end up with just two or three coalitions. Look at WWI--yes, yes I know I'm a complete maroon for bringing a real world analogy into discussions of video games--we had a fairly large number of countries that pretty much settled into two coalitions.

I submit that to break up the null sec coalitions mere changes to game mechanics may not be sufficient. Or if they are they'll make the game miserable to play.

Think of it this way. You have alliance A holding some area. And Alliance B next door holding another piece of area. B wants to displace A..."breathing room you know." So B attacks A, but it doesn't go so well. Things are pretty much stagnant. So B calls upon alliance C and says, "Hey, we want to kick A's booty and take their space, want to help?" The C leadership replies, "What's in it for us?" Negotiations ensue and C joins B. Now A in trouble from B-C....wait....wait...coalition. Desperate they call on their neighbors D...and soon we have two budding coalitions A-D and B-C.

In game theory this is not unlike a death spiral* in the sense that the end result of this initial stages of coalition building that may involve many nascent coalitions at first, winds up with just 2 mega-coalitions at the end.

Fatigue, the entosis link, and probably several more patches will likely not produce what people appear to be looking for. The incentive to band together and create a bigger and stronger combat force will still be there.

*A death spiral is usually where things just spiral right down the crapper between two players. In this case, things spiral right down the crapper till you are left with just two players.

My stiff is your insane.

It's completely subjective, so you have no more or less right to say it's bad than I have to say it's good.

Supers/Titans should always have been implemented using some kind of pylon/node type system enforcing strategic use and limits their power projection plus makes them vulnerable to tactics - i.e. bait them into moving their titans down one pipeline then cut it off allowing you to attack another area for awhile until they can repair the link.

Unfortunately wouldn't work as well for normal carriers and dreads due to the multiple uses of them outside of the sphere supers and titans are used in.

Some of you people have a hard time comprehending things it seems. My alliance has zero to do with anything. I use it as a personal example.

It was mostly fine for me, I had an alt that could fly most things. The point is that, the penalty for having fun in jump capable ships is steeper than is prudent. While I think the goals of the nerf were a bit wacky, it is how it is.

A better plan would be to cut the fatigue cap by 2/3rds and compensate for that by tripling the reactivation timer. At the height of my reaching the cap I had 30 days of fatigue and a 2 day reactivation timer, if CCP did it like I describe, I'd have had 10 days of fatigue and a 6 day timer. I think the jump reactivation timer is a better curb to power projection abuse in the 1st place.

Goal of limiting jump capable ship projection achieved, goal of exacting consequences on someone who is wreckless (or drunk...) with jump capable ships achieved and all without suspending someone from some interesting game play (like blopsing and such) for the better part of a whole calendar month.

Hell, it might even make bourbon sales go up (as I haven't touched the stuff....for 22 days),CCP would literally be helping restore the Kentucky economy..

An absolute text book case of why we have jump fatigue that is all I see here.
Well that and a lot of whining about CCP changing the rules. You know what after 5 years of dealing with rule changes that have affected my game play, I say adapt or leave the game, it is your choice.