EVE General Discussion

My reading of the dev blog gives me the strong impression that they don't understand what players want from the game, which is why they replaced shooting with mining and it's all gone wrong.

We want to achieve the best we can with whatever system is in place, and ideally we'd like that to require conflict. Since it doesn't require conflict and actually benefits us more from avoidance of the same, we have no reason to form up. Sometimes I wonder if CCPs goal is for us to all be blue.

There's plenty of people here, in other thread and in other places on the net stating the exact same thing, that nobody wants to mine structures. It's not my fault that you're so infatuated with me that you attribute every post as mine.

And we are defending our space, genius. At no point have I stated "the problem with this system is that firing sensor damps is just too damn hard!". It's ludicrously easy for us to hold our space and spend even more time generating isk. The problem with that is that it causes stagnation on a greater scale than it used to.

Sometimes when I read posts from people like you I wonder if your end goal is to kill off EVE altogether.

And if this were related to hydrating a horse, then you'd have a point. Games however can be made to require conflict. Seems like CCP have decided that conflict is bad though and thought "lets make taking sov require no conflict and make staying in your own space and just defending that far more appealing than aggressing anyone else".

The saying "art imitates life" and "the pen is mightier than the sword" is the current meta of EVE. When you're at the top you might as well be friends with the other top guys so you guys can roll in the ISK fountain while stomping on any newcomer that wants in on the party. That way you are assured you have continued dominance since the other entities that can actually screw you over are your friends and not some upstart new guy you barely know.

Doorbelling is how you kick doors in

Sov lasers work in a certain way and using bigger ships or more sov lasers on something won't change that


Some people are better farmed for content, you know this~

With this particular part, I agree entirely, which is why to aggress sov it should require commitment.

Why would we take more risks and commit our forces while we can be attacked by people requiring no commitment and can be better off simply defending against them.

It's not risk aversion, It's common sense. It's why a highsec freighter will freighter though all highsec systems rather than opt for a slightly longer route which detours through lowsec. It makes no sense to do it the other way.

I'd love to see people fighting a bit more and having less non-aggression pacts and the like. The problem is there's no benefit for doing so.

CCPs goals in the dev thread are quite clear on the direction they are taking, and are a turning point in terms of what they are and how they aim to achieve those compared to before.

Youndont have to like them or agree with them, but you do have to adapt (which you are).

By all means, give feedback and opinions.

But this ship has clearly charted a new destination and route to get there which is very different to what many players are used to thinking of EVE as. Especially key is the route away from enormous fleet battles and fragmenting sov control mechanics to include non-combat action and disperse conflict over many systems.

As has been stated and corroborated throughout this thread, if you want fights, you must commit.
That is the same as ever.
If you think its more expedient and safe to not do so, then dont.

This is the early iteration of a paradigm shift for EVE sov mechanics. Its just the imperfect and plain foundation upon which to build the rest. Changes and fine tuning will come, but the shape of the house being built is already clear from the dev blog goal blueprints. Try not to lose sight of the larger picture, and refusing to acknowledge the shape of this future will just lead to dissappointment becsuse it does not fit your personal expectations and preferences.

You realise these are oxymoronic, right?

1)Initiating aggression on sov does not require much aggression, true. However maintaining that aggression is commensurate to the defence fielded by the defender. From a design perspective this is expedient, and also coincides with the jump fatigue as both aggressor and defender must be careful how much they commit so as to not make themselves vulnerable at the point of invasion as well as in other systems.

2) "Why would we take more risks and commit our forces while we can be attacked by people requiring no commitment and can be better off simply defending against them."
This is a question your aggressors also have to ask themselves. As in 1), the more they commit to the aggression, the more vulnerable they are elsewhere, and furthermore they must commit sufficiently to overcome your commital to defence. Yes, its more expedient and safe to NOT aggress in light of this. This is a result primarily of player behaviour, however, and not of game mechanics. If you want a system, aggress and commit. If you are complacent and happy with what you have, dont.

As to the HS freighter example, it does make sense to pass through LS if you do your research, choose your moment, build/skill sufficiently, support the action with pilots, and benefit from the time saved. Risk is higher, but that is guaged against your personal benefit from the reward. Its not game mechanics that prevent you doing so, its your own choice.

3) Cooperation vs Conflict is an age old question, extremely complicated and very interesting in EVEs virtual environment.
Generally cooperation is preferable when faced against an insurmountable force, or which otherwise is too costly to engage, and in the absence of overriding moral obligations or resource requirements that make co-existance unacceptable. In terms of game mechanics, restricting the amount of superiority a more powerful entity can commit to one (and preferably more) conflict points alleviates the first condition for co-operation as above, against an insurmountable force. It also strategically creates opportunities for equivalent powers to play the field for advantage at times of weakness in the opposition by engaging on multiple fronts without being overly concerned the defense will field overwhelming force at any given conflict point, especially in more remote areas.

Cooperation can be de-incentivized by offering more opportunity through mechanics for underdogs to take from bloated super powers. If such mechanics/opportunity exist, they have an option rather bending a knee and signing a rental contract. Historically what broke feudalism, was the Black Plague, and nobility being forced to subsequently grant more autonomy due to sparcity of population... Hopefully that is not in the future of EVE...

From my own wargaming background, Id like to see EVE sov systems in meta work more as wide campaigns of multiple engagements, feints and force dispersal.Jump fatigue works towards this. Unfortunately for EVE, there are few environmental/terrain considerations of note, mostly just the hard roadmap of gates. So this dispersal needs to be affected by other mechanics. Downside,no longer large battles except under very specific circumstances (which tbh has always been the case anyways), upside, the challenge also for more established powers to train/field/recruit a more flexible command structure and deployment base of FCs and pilots to respond to local threats with sufficient force and organisation. Also for smaller entities at periphery to, at comparative risk, engage locally (preferably in coalition with others) without having to unduly fear the arrival of a massive and unstoppable superiority.

I love the arguement that now sov warfare is as boring as mining. Now you sit there and fire your entosis link for a long boring hour, whereas before you sat there and fired your torpedoes at a structure for a long "exciting" hour. Pray tell me how it is so very different? The only difference is that now smaller powers can compete for sov.

All you people from the CFC, your issue is not with ccp or fozziesov, it is with your own moronic leadership that failed to adapt to the changing situation. I mean your leadership is so delusional that they are still trying to revive the rental system in Pure Blind of all places.

I really hope you dont do the smart thing and adapt though, this thread full of your tears has been very entertaining and I am sure there are many more to come.
.