These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#461 - 2015-05-05 06:35:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Sgt Ocker wrote:
[
Many in nulsec do rely on highsec for manufacturing materials and always will, unless CCP can somehow ensure every group wanting to live in nulsec has access to all materials needed for manufacturing EVERYTHING in eve. That will never and should never happen. The last thing nulsec needs, is less reason to fight.


Those really are the horns of the dilemma, aren't they? ideally, you could have a situation where, say, Providence was rich in the materials necessary to create Minma- er, sorry, Amarr ships. If some Provi FC wanted to fly Caldari then he'd either have to make a deal with someone in the relevant space, or ninja the required materials, or go after the space themselves. Nearly every actual war has been a conflict over resources. Inexhaustible resources everywhere removes an excellent motivation for some good old player interaction. Ideally.

In reality, the place with inexhaustible resources is Jita; if you include its halo of systems, that includes manufacturing resources. Failing that, there's option 1 in the ideal scenario, which is how you end up with coalitions.

In a game where PVP is costly, the only sure path to victory is to become an effective monopoly, preferably with the least possible amount of open conflict. BoB didn't collapse after losing a sustained military campaign, after all.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#462 - 2015-05-05 09:03:29 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
[
Many in nulsec do rely on highsec for manufacturing materials and always will, unless CCP can somehow ensure every group wanting to live in nulsec has access to all materials needed for manufacturing EVERYTHING in eve. That will never and should never happen. The last thing nulsec needs, is less reason to fight.


Those really are the horns of the dilemma, aren't they? ideally, you could have a situation where, say, Providence was rich in the materials necessary to create Minma- er, sorry, Amarr ships. If some Provi FC wanted to fly Caldari then he'd either have to make a deal with someone in the relevant space, or ninja the required materials, or go after the space themselves. Nearly every actual war has been a conflict over resources. Inexhaustible resources everywhere removes an excellent motivation for some good old player interaction. Ideally.

In reality, the place with inexhaustible resources is Jita; if you include its halo of systems, that includes manufacturing resources. Failing that, there's option 1 in the ideal scenario, which is how you end up with coalitions.

In a game where PVP is costly, the only sure path to victory is to become an effective monopoly, preferably with the least possible amount of open conflict. BoB didn't collapse after losing a sustained military campaign, after all.

The concept of, regions of nul being specialized as far as say, Provi being specialized toward Amarr tech would simply turn Sov into an extension of Empire space. Empires within Empires Twisted.
There is also the issue of game balance, sure Provi could be rich in Amarr tech and everyone there fly Amarr ships BUT the group who hold Gallente tech (the current OP meta) and fly them exclusively are going to kick your butt every time.

Conflict over resources is the ultimate conflict and would bring things to life (or mass deaths as the case may be) but as long as we have giant coalitions controlling so much of the resources, real conflict is off the table.
The only entity that could attack a large coalition is another large coalition but as they have little to gain but everything to lose, it won't happen. Stagnation aside from the odd little grudge war or a coalition or two spending a couple of days driving out an upstart alliance who wants to challenge them is not "content" for the masses, rather it is a show of strength and a warning to others.

End game, for anyone wanting to move to nulsec - Local coalition says, Don't annoy us, we will simply crush you.

Fozzie sov may indeed allow some newcomers to nul to take some worthless systems and plant flags BUT only till the local coalition wants them out. Entosis links and defensive indexes make it so easy to control who your neighbours are. Just keep hitting any new comer before they can get indexes up, easy wins guaranteed.
Want to play with them? Just keep the local stations in Freeport mode, they may hold sov but the attackers own the systems.

As for BOB, your right, they didn't and the new rulers of nulsec learned the lesson well. So well, they have become virtually immovable objects.

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.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#463 - 2015-05-05 10:33:57 UTC
Nothing will change the fact that people not prepared to fight for their space will lose it. What fozzie sov does is reduce the size of the groups likely to dispute a challenger. What more would you want or expect of it?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jenshae Chiroptera
#464 - 2015-05-05 11:11:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Malcanis wrote:
Nothing will change the fact that people not prepared to fight for their space will lose it. What fozzie sov does is reduce the size of the groups likely to dispute a challenger. What more would you want or expect of it?
The same people will fight, the same people will mooch around in the safest systems.
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
. We would like to remove these bonuses in future, but we don’t feel nullsec industry is in a sufficiently strong place that it would be prudent to do so right now.[/i]
CCP should reduce the bonuses on black ops and industrials by 10% each month.
actually, that would be a wonderful idea to go ahead and give nullsec a kcik and force them to start prepping for the eventual change.
Would it possibly be smaller groups trying to establish themselves...?
You would be surprised what a few miners and blockade runners with a scout, POS and BPCs can accomplish. Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#465 - 2015-05-05 20:08:30 UTC
Honestly, EVE has never been nor shall it ever be a sandbox game. I have never been in a sandbox where parts of it go into protected mode when a certain person isnt there to protect their sandcastle.

If you want EVE to move in the direction it appears you do then the complete removal of all protection of assets not provided by players in ships guarding it should be eliminated. Personally id hate the game but that would push the game more towards the sandbox mantra that many players claim is true of EVE and that CCP boasts about but which i said earlier EVE is not.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#466 - 2015-05-05 20:14:41 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Nothing will change the fact that people not prepared to fight for their space will lose it. What fozzie sov does is reduce the size of the groups likely to dispute a challenger. What more would you want or expect of it?
The same people will fight, the same people will mooch around in the safest systems.


What does that even mean? I can't even tell if that means you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, because it could easily be read either way.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Tess Storm
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#467 - 2015-05-05 20:37:02 UTC
The sandbox isnt shrinking. With fatigue up to 4-5 days, why log in?
Oh, you say: you didnt wait an hour?
Lots of better things to do than just sit and wait.
Hir Miriel
Elves In Space
#468 - 2015-05-05 22:54:37 UTC
Every sandbox has four walls.

The chaos is a deception, it's all held together by rules.

The move to smaller group play is also mirrored in other games. Smaller raids in WoW, and emphasis on five player groups for MOBAs.

It may seem like four big groups will forever hold EVE space in thrall.

But remember when we used to think that about Yahoo and MySpace?

Now it's Google and Facebook.

Even if CCP changed nothing eventually the power blocs in EVE would change.

This adjustment makes it more likely to happen, because more groups now exert more influence.

~ ~~ Thinking inside Schrodinger's sandbox. ~~ ~

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#469 - 2015-05-06 01:24:53 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

And who would you think benefit most from forcing self reliance without creating a new balance of power?
Would it possibly be smaller groups trying to establish themselves OR the few dominating groups who already control such large expanses of space.
Infrastructure or lack of, is a minor component of self sustainability in nulsec. Availability of materials needed to support an alliance has far more impact than lack of a pos or station.



Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
You would be surprised what a few miners and blockade runners with a scout, POS and BPCs can accomplish. Blink

What building a few T1 ships or modules in a deserted back water system somewhere in NPC nulsec?
Or do you run to highsec to buy materials for a bit of T2 manufacturing?

Anyway - No I wouldn't at all be surprised, that is exactly how I got started, out in Curse, many years ago. Although I didn't have blockade runners, for a long time I used T1 haulers.
I made some isk, spent more time micro managing everything than I did anything else and so; gave it up once I realized, that was as far as I'd get if I didn't change up. (made more isk manufacturing and selling T1 ammo in the Domain in 6 months, than I did in nearly 2 years worrying about losing everything i owned if some gang decided to kill my pos in npc nul)

4 or 5 people in npc nul eking out a living in a backwater system isn't what I was referring to with snippet of my post you so selectively quoted. Keeping my original post (above) in context, there is a big difference between a few miners with blockade runners and a pos and a small group (small alliance) trying to take sov and make it pay.

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.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#470 - 2015-05-06 02:13:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Nothing will change the fact that people not prepared to fight for their space will lose it. What fozzie sov does is reduce the size of the groups likely to dispute a challenger. What more would you want or expect of it?

Yep those who don't want to fight for their sov will still lose it and those who do want to fight but are simply overwhelmed by opposing numbers will still lose. No change there.

Two or three minor changes to the way (the proposal states) Entosis links do their thing, would "change" the sov game, instead of just moving it slightly away from having to pay sov bills on unused space.

Put the proposal forward a few months in advance - then nothing (not even a curt, "we saw the feedback") - now a month till it is supposed to go live and ? ?

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.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#471 - 2015-05-06 08:32:17 UTC
Seems to me like quite a bit of feedback was taken on board, but it seems like you're determined to lose before the game even starts, so contrary facts aren't relevant.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#472 - 2015-05-07 02:45:14 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Seems to me like quite a bit of feedback was taken on board, but it seems like you're determined to lose before the game even starts, so contrary facts aren't relevant.

Wouldn't know if feedback has been taken on board or not, nothing has been said.

Certain groups may be privy to what feedback has or hasn't achieved but i'm not in one of those groups and only have 2 month old info to base my thoughts and feeling about the coming change on.

I wonder if not keeping players updated on what is gong on has anything to do with my seemingly contrary stance.
The ONLY facts at hand, are the ONLY relevant thing.

Less than 1 month from now the new sov game comes into play. At this rate we will get to see it what, a week, 2 if we're lucky before it goes live?
One of the most important changes to game play in years, that will hit the servers with little to no testing and no time (possibly deliberately) for player feedback to be relevant.

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.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#473 - 2015-05-07 02:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Wouldn't know if feedback has been taken on board or not, nothing has been said.

Certain groups may be privy to what feedback has or hasn't achieved but i'm not in one of those groups and only have 2 month old info to base my thoughts and feeling about the coming change on.

No special group needed to see what has been taken on board from the feedback so far.

Here is for example, the next iteration in the entosis link as a result of feedback:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=416259&find=unread

There are bits and pieces around on other things too, though nothing I've seen so far on the primetime mechanic following the questionaire that was published. That would be good to have an update on.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#474 - 2015-05-07 03:41:57 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Wouldn't know if feedback has been taken on board or not, nothing has been said.

Certain groups may be privy to what feedback has or hasn't achieved but i'm not in one of those groups and only have 2 month old info to base my thoughts and feeling about the coming change on.

No special group needed to see what has been taken on board from the feedback so far.

Here is for example, the next iteration in the entosis link as a result of feedback:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=416259&find=unread

There are bits and pieces around on other things too, though nothing I've seen so far on the primetime mechanic following the questionaire that was published. That would be good to have an update on.
Posting completely off topic - Why not...
Sorry but I don't see anything there that has anything to do with entosis links or the looming sov changes. There is NO reference to them at all in the OP's post. As it is about icons on SISI, I wouldn't expect it to make reference to the Entosis link.
Maybe you linked the wrong thread??


As for the new icons, yeah, got on SISI, not impressed. Little grey circles and squares, with white highlights to tell them apart. 30 years ago when I could see well enough they may have been ok (not good, just ordinary and possibly practical) but now they are just really hard to tell apart.
Don't fix what ain't broke, is a great analogy here.

It is a reasonable ploy to distract attention from the important changes though. Keep players thinking about mundane unnecessary changes then just drop in the major game changers with little to no feedback.

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.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#475 - 2015-05-07 04:19:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Maybe you clicked the wrong link.

It links to the Features & Ideas discussion on Entosis Link Part 2.

Thought that was totally on topic, especially in relation to your concern that there has been nothing further from CCP since the original devblog.
Solecist Project
#476 - 2015-05-07 11:13:07 UTC

Are we dead yet?

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

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#477 - 2015-05-07 20:10:27 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Nothing will change the fact that people not prepared to fight for their space will lose it. What fozzie sov does is reduce the size of the groups likely to dispute a challenger. What more would you want or expect of it?


Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'small groups', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of larger, better organized groups.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#478 - 2015-05-07 21:57:41 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Maybe you clicked the wrong link.

It links to the Features & Ideas discussion on Entosis Link Part 2.

Thought that was totally on topic, especially in relation to your concern that there has been nothing further from CCP since the original devblog.

Except that isn't the thread that was originally linked.
It originally linked to the thread for the proposed new icons.

Hard to click the wrong link when there is only one link there.
Maybe you having edited the link, made the difference.

On topic response to your edited one - The changes are ok but still don't address the fundamental "troll" use of the module.
When one alliance has to battle the combined efforts of 8 or 9 attacking alliances as a single entity, numbers win.

If each group (alliance) with an active entosis was and individual attacker it would lower the ease with which a smaller alliance could simply be overwhelmed by large groups from various alliances working together.

Every entosis link activated on a given structure should be an individual attack that needs to be overcome by every other entosis link before any capture progress is made.
Simply - If the concept proposed in the original blog for undefended structures applied to defended structures as well, it would open up the playing field.

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.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#479 - 2015-05-07 23:28:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Malcanis wrote:
Seems to me like quite a bit of feedback was taken on board, but it seems like you're determined to lose before the game even starts, so contrary facts aren't relevant.
The very basis of it, that one ship can flip a station in under an hour is broken.
The whole approach is flawed and will be griefer's paradise.

Instead of swinging at the coalitions with a sledge hammer, they should create space where smaller groups could grow to challenge the Null alliances.

The current plan will be:
1) Too annoying to defend
2) A great honey trap
3) Leave people wide open for extortion

It is all built on the premises that
1) people will fight,
2) it will be just the two engagements
3) people will actually want the SOV.

Instead, the best approach is to just let them take the system, then come back and keep annoying them until they give up or just flip it blue later from free port.
Base out of NPC Null or Low Sec, control moons and just mess with the Null SOV.

You need ratting and mining indexes high but at the same time Infrastructure Hubs are going to pop so easily that you can't get those indexes up.
It is going to be an absolute nightmare for any smaller sized group to develop with all the larger coaltions stomping them for "tears" and "lulz".

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#480 - 2015-05-07 23:39:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Except that isn't the thread that was originally linked.
It originally linked to the thread for the proposed new icons.

No, I never changed the link, nor posted off topic.

Maybe you had a different tab open or something, but the link was not edited. You even quoted it, so click the one in your quote.