EVE General Discussion

There's little other reason to gather up trillions and trillions of isk, the guy has a pretty much perfect laundering system (since he controls logs of who wins) and a higher ratio of IWI bankers have been banned than in the rest of the game (according to Noizy who knows his stuff), and that's if you ignore the direct accusations from multiple sources. I'm not usually one to go with "no smoke without fire" but that's an awful lot of smoke. Personally I think sites such as this put too big a hole in the ability of CCP to trace transactions so should just be shut down regardless - and you can go ahead and check my posting history to see this was the case looooong before the whole SMA v IWI thing before you jump to that assumption.

From my point of view it feels like being forced to play with bad mechanics while enemies run away and cloak up. I'd love a war that brings proper content, these mechanics just don't encourage that, not even remotely. You might be an exception to that, but that's the reality for most people engaged in it.

They don;t ow me anything, but a balanced mechanic would have both sides put something on the table to fight over. That's a basic principle of games. If only one side has a stake in the game then it's becomes completely one sided. As I sad earlier, imagine playing poker against someone who gets to keep their chips regardless while you always have to go all in. They can play to only win or break even, while you have the potential to lose.

I imagine ihubs and tcus will all be citadel modules in the long run. Tidi is less of an issue on the new hardware. Additionally I think null stations (player owned and NPC) will lose a lot of features or go completely so attackers will also need to put their assets at risk to have the benefit of living on a sov owners doorstep.

True, but as long as they are somewhat balanced and most importantly entertaining whether winning or losing then they will be much better.

Sounds like what I used to play as a kid, Knock door run

CCP don;t control the logs for the IWI server though, so tracking what is a player legitimately winning a jackpot and what is someone paying cash for that win is impossible. This is why they should simply close the potential loophole.

If you give both sides a good reason to not run away (something to lose if they do) then they should naturally fight. This is what I mean when I say attackers should commit. They need to have a negative consequence to running away or losing like defenders do, then they will actually bring a fight.

Only one side can blueball. Attackers can blueball and defender will form up, and the attackers can laugh, but if it's the other way round the attackers just entosis the ihub/tcu/station. The defenders have to show up because they have something to lose.

They would have a place to stage from, and like sov owners they would have to actually defend it.

I used to very much enjoy it before they destroyed it with fozziesov, so did a lot of others. If they had moved it in a positive direction it would have been better at least.

If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots.

Because once again for the 700th time, it's not "difficult", otherwise we would no longer own the space, it's just boring. Even if we had just a couple of systems we'd still be under the same problem that firing a mining laser at a structure and chasing off people with no intention of taking the sov (and nothing actually committed to the fight) is what CCP class as content.

But we already don't struggle, hence us not losing our space. The problem once again is that the act of doing so is boring, meaning the best way to deal with sov is to simply not hold it. I'm really not sure what it is about basic English you are failing to grasp.

As for density, even after our loss of members we're already pretty tightly packed. We're at like 87 people per system, whereas you look at groups like BOT (18/system) Soviet-Union (15/system) Shadow of xXDEATHXx (12/system) and wondered why they aren't considered to be spread too thin. At the end of the day system density has nothing to do with it, the system requires no commitment from the attacker, so the reality is that if a non-sov holder wants to force a sov holder to have to deal with constant times, they can without any worry of losing anything of value. That's bad design.

Well I did a tour of Fade last night looking for a fight. I saw four SMA pilots, total, outside of staging. It was ridiculously deserted.

But the point is that if you are seeking an “interesting” way to defend your space, which I interpret as a PvP-based mechanic, then the best way to do it is to consolidate and diversify your players to the point where you can easily and quickly form a strong defence fleet. This means that the fleet doesn't have to fly all the way across the region.

A truly local defence fleet means that you don't have to do any entosis at all because the attackers don't manage to get a foothold. You form a fleet and kill the intruders. Interesting.

But it seems to me what you actually want is to not have to defend an entire region (plus a couple of extra constellations) with an alliance which would, if left to their own devices, not last even a week.

I think you've either misread or misunderstood something. Well either that or it's just you're farming at the mouth so much you can't see that you are contradicting yourself. Here' I'll simplify:

I've stated that mechanics are bad as attackers don't need to commit, meaning that they can keep defenders responding for eternity with no real cost. You've then gone on to claim that the issue is our population density. I've then shown there are significantly less dense sov holders not having these problems because attackers are not yet attacking them. This proves that your claims that our density (or lack thereof) is the issue is complete and utter horseshit.

Any group owning sov would have the same issue if an attacker chose to leverage the massive benefit the broken mechanics give them. You're only happy because it's us and your bias overrides any potential for objective views.

How do you even manage to dress yourself in the morning?

I agree with you, this is great. But no one will believe that coming from me.

I belive you this is amazingly fun for me and i don;t have close to the numbers you guys do to work with. there's kill to be had everywhere and a fight just around the next corner. the citdels coming up next and cap changes are going to make things even more intersting and entertaining,