EVE General Discussion

Very nice, someone does listen - although I'm not sure with the need for TCU's being removed as far as controlling and getting defensive indexes up that this couldn't be abused like hell by some huge alliance that wants to steamroll the map. (just for fun of course).
30 ihubs and 1 TCU, means you can quite easily just move your capital system to wherever you want, pretty much whenever you want.

Capital system needs to be tied to the iHub - Not the (now) optional TCU.

TCU = Captial System = Lower vulnerability - Which is just so open to abuse by the likes of (no offence guys but it is how you play) Pandemic Legion.

The greatest fear of any small alliance is that they come to the attention of PL and a few others like them (who don't hold sov but play the sov game, very well). Allowing PL in particular to stage any where with an instant Capital System, by NOT holding sov is just such a dangerous thing (although lots of fun for them).


NB; I am not putting PL down or singling them out (yes I am because they have the ability to use this to extremes), any non sov alliance who wants to just mess with others sov will use / abuse this mechanic to gain advantage.

In context; Pushing for change (whining loudly enough) to make Eve a better place, by "fixing" XXX, when it is only your sub group you are concerned with.

"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a pejorative term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society."

I like this one better though;
urbandictionary
A way that we speak in America so we don't offend whining pussies.
Only pathetically weak people that don't have the balls to say what they feel and mean are politically correct pussies.

Did I get it right teach or are all the minority groups who push for personally wanted change, at the expense of or without consideration for others not being politically correct by pretending their wanted change is good for all?
Many of these groups certainly DON"T say what they mean or feel and word things to appear very differently to what they really mean.

Intersting ..
Amanda Taub's Vox piece denying the existence of political correctness does get one thing right: The phrase political correctness "has no actual fixed or specific meaning." What it does have, though Taub doesn't explore this, is a history of meanings: a series of ways different people have deployed the term, often for radically different purposes.

-- - -- - -- - -- - --
20 years ago I was slated as being "politically correct" in a national newspaper article regarding my advocacy for a less than popular minority group I worked closely with in the course of my employment.




Actually not far off "age pension" - Would love to be 40 years younger and know what i do now.

Dang, you're nothing more than a manipulative monster, constantly overestimating himself. The only luck we he is that ccp is smart enough to ignore your bullshitteria completely and you can keep jerking your ego all day long.

No, I didn't miss the point.

I just didn't see any problem with it. Yes, it will require Alliances that want sov to be active. I don't see that being bad.

Will that benefit larger groups? Most likely. Alternatively, smaller Alliances (like my own) will need to look for other ways to ensure safety.

Mechanics aren't the only thing. It only takes 1 defending entosis link on a structure to stop all the attacking ones. So good diplomacy, dependable friends and giving as much as receiving is going to be a way that small Alliances can overcome the limitations of a vulnerability window everyday; and reduce the number of their own people that will need to be online.

On the flip side, all structures are currently vulnerable to attack at any time in order to be reinforced; and yet they aren't being constantly attacked.

Maybe because of the structure grind, or maybe because what's the point in taking someone else's sov anyway? There's lots of space not worth much, so why put yourself in the position of attacking and defending it if you need to go elsewhere to generate good income anyway?

Your corp/alliance isn't online for 4 hours a day? They don't play the game.

Why do you need Sov at all.

Many are but who wants to spend 4 hours a day in a defense fleet in case someone comes to try and mess with you.
Who says 4 hours a day should be a minimum requirement to be part of a sov alliance?

Why should I not be able to take a fleet and go look for a fight without fear our sov is going to be attacked?
What is the minimum amount of time each member has to dedicate to their alliance on a daily basis 7/365?
Where does it leave those who can't play every day. Do they not get allowed to be in a sov alliance?

See how silly your comment is yet?

The latest replies are fascinating guys, but what do they have to do with the Shrinking Sandbox?

Some of the stuff aint even implemented yet.

Thread could have been closed ages ago, but the self centered attention whore up there keeps people hooked. If we agreed on not replying anymore, others will follow and he can do what he does best: Talking to himself. All alone.

The central problem, in the title is still valid.
CCP could try some actual target marketing.
We could link buddy invites all over the place and put up posters locally.

There are ways to counter the shrinkage.

Most alliance dipping their feet in SOV won't bring their index up in the first few day probably tho. If you win a system by fighting the previous owner, you will probably have trouble raising the industrial and military index with people harassing you. The first week of holding sov will probabbly be frantic as you struggle to raise your index to give yourself a buffer time to form up against any entosis event but then again, you took that system with effort so putting some in still for a bit more time to keep it in the rough starting time of your space empire isn't all that terrible.