EVE General Discussion

that's really pleasant reply Aaron,

but you're kinda incorrect sir as eve dev's provided the tools for her community to figure out and make the content. now you have players becoming devs and making biased decisions just cause it helps certain groups, you have prejudice dev's who'll look the other way and refuse to fix a broken mechanic while the huge majority of the community wants it done (cloaky camping).. you have that kind of decision making going on..and they cant lock down why folks are leaving or even retain players.

we've reached a limit alright, we have been pushed to the final threshold and folks are.. LEAVING.. and ccp don't have a clue on how to get them back.. but hey.. lets blow up a station while they pray that draws players.

Wait, did i understand right, did they scrap it from tomorrow´s launch?

So our hopes were answered?
You got my hopes up.

It was a temporary thing for the efforts of the War. It had a purpose. The current purpose is Everlasting Peace & Prosperity for all.

Eve Online Alliance space holdings History for the 2007-2015 period - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi9_ArJ2mEY




Shrinking numbers? We quadrupled in PCU from 12k people online - http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

Those two Wars built this game.



A rotation in particular R32/R64 availability in a given region/part of space every few years could be a healthy thing.



I don't see the need for tears - it just means they are the lion/bear and you're just the wolf, or a hyena. Bear/lion fights are best fights - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=412127

Stick to R8/R16s.



Ohhhh, HAHAHA.

Yes, nuclear power nations drop those, pick up guns and start shooting themselves all the time. They certainly don't get all paranoid about other nuclear nations and try stop regular nations making nuclear armaments.

Just to clarify a misconception that some people seem to have acquired from who knows where

"Fozziesov" isn't supposed to 'break up' coalitions. Even the briefest glance at the mechanics would show that this is not the intention behand the mechanics changes. If anything, fozzie sov will strongly reward local co-operation, especially between alliances with different peak TZs.

What "Fozziesov" and the Jump Fatigue mechanics are intended to achieve, and what the have demonstrably been extremely succesful at already, is to shrink the coalitions. At the start of 2014, there was little reason beyond :effort: and the risk of a shattering loss by coming into contention with one of the other two, for one of the first rate supercap powers not to extend their rental dominion indefinately. The 2 blocs had effectively NAPped each other, and they could trivially and safely project their power to any point on the map. There was nowhere to hide for any smaller party. This has changed.

Of the three spaceholding blocks that existed a year ago today, only one still holds space, and that single remaining bloc holds half of he space they had. Gigantic swathes of 0.0 have been viably opened up for other groups to set up shop. Achieving this state of affairs was the aim of the travel nerf and the sov changes, and so far we have seen good results with multiple new groups planting their flag on the map.

If anyone is expecting a "fuckgoons" expansion, they can keep waiting. Or, you know, buy some entosis links and start doing something about it themselves.

Honey traps.

The downsizing is of course political. o7 Fatal Ascension, right? The trimming and the moving around and the consolidating are not always going to go over well with everyone.

CCP can't ~force~ coalitions apart, but the less needed they are the more significant any internal tensions and schisms will be.

"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is The Mittani, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

v0v This too shall pass, right? Nobody could read the history of EVE and think that anything in 0.0 will last forever, especially not such a keen student of politics and history as the king in question. The price of survival is the acceptance of permanent change. (Which lesson Jenshae stubbornly refuses to accept)

For the millionth time: there is no mechanic short of GM fiat that will let a small casual group hold or gain sov in the face of determined opposition from a large, well organised one. Any complaints about a sov system based on that objection are a waste of time.

All that fozzie sov and the travel changes can do is increase the required amount of determination steeply with distance.

The sheer fact that those 600+ systems have been abandoned should be an indicator as to how much determination the existing powers have to attack them.

You can call it "punchbagging" or you can call it regular PvP content, whichever makes you the more happy. But in the hundreds of systems it is now possible for new powers to establish themselves wheras a year ago it was unthinkable.

If you're not angling for CCP to straight up give you sov and grant you mechanical privileges towards keeping it, then let's hear your suggestions for evenly applied sov mechanics that magically let the Mike And Dave Alliance thrive 6 jumps from YA0.

One thing stands out far beyond anything - 18hrs of vulnerability. Give new alliances a bit of a buffer from the constant threat associated with new sov. (especially once entosis rule goes live)

Next would be Strategic index levels in existing but unused sov - Remove it. Strategic indexes should be earned by activity not time held. Making the "strategic index" stand for something other than paying a sov bill for years would open up a lot of unused sov to being taken over.

Capital systems, a damn good idea and if they could be activated at the time of the TCU coming online, instead of "a few days later" it could help new groups (and existing ones looking to branch out). To reduce the risk of the mechanic being 'gamed" by groups using it for staging purposes, it could incorporate penalties applied to the system it was moved from. For example, if your "capital system" has maxed indexes and you move it to a newly taken system, the system it came from could incur an index reduction penalty, making it vulnerable to attack.

Capture the node, should be restricted to the system at risk or at most, systems the sov holders have an interest in. It should not mean having to win a mini game in the surrounding 6 to 10 systems that the alliance may not even have a stake in.
With a quick glance at the sov map recently I found 12 constellations where multiple alliances hold sov - They are not all friends.
So when one comes under threat, they are facing having to fight the threat as well as the uneasy neighbours, who wouldn't need to attack but could certainly change the outcome of a fight for sov (capture the node) in the neighbouring system. If nothing else, they could easily extend the defenders vulnerability window by simply capturing a few nodes.


As many of the currently available (and potentially available - unused) systems are surrounded by well entrenched large groups, the door in is very narrow. Yes some possibly could do it hard and take those systems but not with all the builtin barriers we will soon see in force. Why is it do you think that so many groups have been jostling for space prior to the release of Fozziesov?


I don't want an "easy as you go" sov system, just one that balances out the playing field a little.
A few minor changes and Fozzisov could well be the right balance.