Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Felix Judge
Gallente Volunteer Defense Forces Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 16:46:00 -
[421] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Whatever the implementation may be, somethign is needed. A way that smallers fleets can cause damage or economic disruption on a sov held territory if they are not coutnered. There must be possible to hurt an alliance a bit without the need to bring 500 people.
That is necessary so that smaller fleets need to be coutnered, so MORE small scale combat happens. Easy. Base sov on presence of military ships over a certain amount of time - short enough that takeovers dont take weeks, but but long enough that nul does not return to ping-pong games. Yes, I have thought longer about this and posted a thread all of its own in the Features and Ideas forum... so look below if you are interested in the details. Oh, and please leave a comment there if you think it would not work for some reason. |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
332
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 17:09:00 -
[422] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote: Right now, we have no established foundation for small group effectiveness against blob tactics, and also nothing exists to effectively threaten sov establishments created by blob tactics.
I believe we need to place a clear foundation for small groups being effective against the sov establishments.
I feel we need to retire the mantra of blob or GTFO.
For this you need to limit the free social interaction we currently have in-game and out-of-game. This "current situation" has happened because people are allowed to talk to each other and gather in numbers to get safety.
Removing the social interaction options in-game would just cause an explosion in OOG tools to track all of the allies and overlay in-game if you're shooting allies or hostiles. Also limiting social interaction is equal to branding EvE as a Massive Online RPG because Multiplayer has been stripped out by arbitrary limitations from anyone who doesn't have the time to handle OOG tools for coalitions.
Large coalitions are because of human nature to band together and countering that will not come from game mechanics. |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
332
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 17:13:00 -
[423] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Whatever the implementation may be, somethign is needed. A way that smallers fleets can cause damage or economic disruption on a sov held territory if they are not coutnered. There must be possible to hurt an alliance a bit without the need to bring 500 people.
That is necessary so that smaller fleets need to be coutnered, so MORE small scale combat happens. Easy. Base sov on presence of military ships over a certain amount of time - short enough that takeovers dont take weeks, but but long enough that nul does not return to ping-pong games. Yes, I have thought longer about this and posted a thread all of its own in the Features and Ideas forum... so look below if you are interested in the details. Oh, and please leave a comment there if you think it would not work for some reason.
Alliance X has 500 plaeyrs. Alliance Y has 10 000 players.
Imagine: Taking a system takes 100 active combat pilots in the system for 24 hours being active. Alliance X can take one system per day and have to force people to play for almost 5 hours every single day to attack or defend space. Alliance Y can ask every pilot to be in space for an hour per day and still can assault or defend 4 systems.
No matter what you do to "prefer small gangs", larger numbers will always run over the small gangs either via attrition, financial superiority (shinier ships in larger numbers) or just by blobbing.
Remember, if a group of 5 can do X, a group of 50 can do potentially 10X. |
Felix Judge
Gallente Volunteer Defense Forces Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 17:31:00 -
[424] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote: Alliance X has 500 plaeyrs. Alliance Y has 10 000 players.
Imagine: Taking a system takes 100 active combat pilots in the system for 24 hours being active. Alliance X can take one system per day and have to force people to play for almost 5 hours every single day to attack or defend space. Alliance Y can ask every pilot to be in space for an hour per day and still can assault or defend 4 systems.
No matter what you do to "prefer small gangs", larger numbers will always run over the small gangs either via attrition, financial superiority (shinier ships in larger numbers) or just by blobbing.
Remember, if a group of 5 can do X, a group of 50 can do potentially 10X.
Yes, but for every group of 50, there are 20 groups of 5. So the 50-person-group has to prevail against 100. And for every alliance of 10.000, there are tens of 1.000, and hundreds of 100.
When you compare one large and small group, of course the large group will prevail. But many small groups can overwhelm the large group. Nobody wold think a lioness can kill an elephant. And actually, she can't. But several lionesses can.
Also: the alliance of 10.000 can take 20 systems until it is "on par" with the alliance of 500 holding one system - each has 500 pilots / system available to take / defend their sov. How many systems do the large blocs hold today? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
802
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 17:34:00 -
[425] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Whatever the implementation may be, somethign is needed. A way that smallers fleets can cause damage or economic disruption on a sov held territory if they are not coutnered. There must be possible to hurt an alliance a bit without the need to bring 500 people.
That is necessary so that smaller fleets need to be coutnered, so MORE small scale combat happens. you can do that now
you just don't, because it requires actual effort and commitment |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2011
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:02:00 -
[426] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Whatever the implementation may be, somethign is needed. A way that smallers fleets can cause damage or economic disruption on a sov held territory if they are not coutnered. There must be possible to hurt an alliance a bit without the need to bring 500 people.
That is necessary so that smaller fleets need to be coutnered, so MORE small scale combat happens. you can do that now you just don't, because it requires actual effort and commitment People don't because you'll drop a carrier fleet on 20 Cruisers... EVE needs more Pssshhhh |
Felix Judge
Gallente Volunteer Defense Forces Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:11:00 -
[427] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:Also: the alliance of 10.000 can take 20 systems until it is "on par" with the alliance of 500 holding one system - each has 500 pilots / system available to take / defend their sov. How many systems do the large blocs hold today? Never not self-quote... \o/
I am guessing, and a dedicated statistican could probably work it out and present a nice graph or chart, but I am guessing that today the large blocs have a very low pilots/system-quota.
Well, a few "random" examples: Northern Associates. + NC.: 750 systems, 16.000 pilots - 21 pilots/system Goon Swarm Federation + PUBL0rds: 350 system, 15.000 pilots - 43 pilots/system xxLegionofDeathxx: 75 systems, 1.600 pilots: 21 pilots/system Black Pearl Alliance: 3 systems, 1.400 pilots: 467 pilots /system Yulai Federation: 7 systems, 1.300 pilots: 186 pilots / system
Of course, in the age of coalitions, what would really matter is the coalition qoutas. Maybe someone would be so kind to calulate that?
And there are lots of alliances with more than 21 or 43 pilots. A few of them certainly eager to stick their foot into that sov space.
Of course, the large group has the advantage that it can shift its pilots towards contested systems. This, however, would make other systems more vulnerable to attack. I would guess (again, I am guessing) that a twice as large group can probably hold a four times as large territory before it becomes so stretched out that its little-used system will sooner or later be singled out by groups looking to claim sov. There will always be groups probing if they cant take a system here or there from a space-large entity. And as with the lionesses, if enough do so at the same time, the elephant herd will lose one member (one system will fall).
Over time, I would guess that pilots / system will be evenly distributed, with an advantage towards larger groups, but not any more with exclusivity for the large blocs as it is now. |
Grandorr
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:11:00 -
[428] - Quote
On a side note..
http://imgur.com/gallery/vH1DVVD
lol |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4381
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:48:00 -
[429] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Right now, we have no established foundation for small group effectiveness against blob tactics, and also nothing exists to effectively threaten sov establishments created by blob tactics.
I believe we need to place a clear foundation for small groups being effective against the sov establishments.
I feel we need to retire the mantra of blob or GTFO.
For this you need to limit the free social interaction we currently have in-game and out-of-game. This "current situation" has happened because people are allowed to talk to each other and gather in numbers to get safety. Removing the social interaction options in-game would just cause an explosion in OOG tools to track all of the allies and overlay in-game if you're shooting allies or hostiles. Also limiting social interaction is equal to branding EvE as a Massive Online RPG because Multiplayer has been stripped out by arbitrary limitations from anyone who doesn't have the time to handle OOG tools for coalitions. Large coalitions are because of human nature to band together and countering that will not come from game mechanics. Slow down, you are getting too far in one direction, and not the direction I was pointing at in the first place.
First, I am not expecting smaller groups to claim space despite the opposition of larger ones, as I have this impression from your writing. No limit to social interaction is needed, for my interest to be given action.
I want smaller groups to be effective against larger ones, not replace them. I want to demonstrate the philosophy that it is easier to claim space than to protect it from attack by others.
For this, you can keep all the social interaction you like, but we need to remove the artificial barriers protecting the gaps in system defenses.
That can mean anything, including these potentials: Option> A Black Ops capability to create and support a gate camp OUTSIDE the boundaries of two connected systems, by subverting one of the gates to divert selected traffic into a deadspace area not part of either system itself.
Option> A deep agent in the target alliance can anchor a deployable blindspot in the space of an alliance, giving hostiles a safe location to rally for surprise attacks.
The ideas are on a similar theme, in many cases, where a smaller force can use it's leverage in a limited capacity to cause significant impact, but nothing that would be likely to cripple an alliance. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13257
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:52:00 -
[430] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Right now, we have no established foundation for small group effectiveness against blob tactics, and also nothing exists to effectively threaten sov establishments created by blob tactics.
I believe we need to place a clear foundation for small groups being effective against the sov establishments.
I feel we need to retire the mantra of blob or GTFO.
For this you need to limit the free social interaction we currently have in-game and out-of-game. This "current situation" has happened because people are allowed to talk to each other and gather in numbers to get safety.
Not at all. We simply need to allow small groups to be able to inflict damage on the blobs. Hence the need for the logi nerf. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:54:00 -
[431] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Right now, we have no established foundation for small group effectiveness against blob tactics, and also nothing exists to effectively threaten sov establishments created by blob tactics.
I believe we need to place a clear foundation for small groups being effective against the sov establishments.
I feel we need to retire the mantra of blob or GTFO.
For this you need to limit the free social interaction we currently have in-game and out-of-game. This "current situation" has happened because people are allowed to talk to each other and gather in numbers to get safety. Removing the social interaction options in-game would just cause an explosion in OOG tools to track all of the allies and overlay in-game if you're shooting allies or hostiles. Also limiting social interaction is equal to branding EvE as a Massive Online RPG because Multiplayer has been stripped out by arbitrary limitations from anyone who doesn't have the time to handle OOG tools for coalitions. Large coalitions are because of human nature to band together and countering that will not come from game mechanics.
That is in no way true.
Null isn't broken because people can talk to each other. It's broken because there is little enough reason to stab an 'ally' in the back because everyone NEEDS hundreds of blues when it counts because thanks to power projection any fight that counts escalates to include everyone.
'Human nature'? Prove it. You dont see this type of behavior anywhere else in the game.
If an ally couldn't magic their fleet across the game to bail you out or protect something vulnerable, these groups wouldnt even venture let alone manage the sprawl they do.
And if a smaller groups could hit the holdings of a larger entities to any degree, groups wouldn't be as large as they are and neither would blue lists.
It's not human nature to want to form up into a 4 digit manned lagfest. It's the exact opposite. People want action, content not stagnation and lagfests. It's the mechanics of the game we have to thank.
Human nature... lol. Who even comes up with this unsubstantiated crap?
"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain." |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
332
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:57:00 -
[432] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Right now, we have no established foundation for small group effectiveness against blob tactics, and also nothing exists to effectively threaten sov establishments created by blob tactics.
I believe we need to place a clear foundation for small groups being effective against the sov establishments.
I feel we need to retire the mantra of blob or GTFO.
For this you need to limit the free social interaction we currently have in-game and out-of-game. This "current situation" has happened because people are allowed to talk to each other and gather in numbers to get safety. Not at all. We simply need to allow small groups to be able to inflict damage on the blobs. Hence the need for the logi nerf.
That sounds lovely, we'll get more explosions per fight and implant prices go up. WIn-win.
It's still not going to get "Random Hisec Alliance 93653" to venture out to null. Maybe 30 alliances who don't own sov now would try to get a few systems, but they could be coralled into a single region as pets to shoot at |
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:58:00 -
[433] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Not at all. We simply need to allow small groups to be able to inflict damage on the blobs. Hence the need for the logi nerf.
And here comes Captain 'Morale Killmails' to drag his tired lines out hoping no one will notice it will do the exact opposite of what he claims.
Go ahead and reply to my previous comment citing nothing will ever impact goons so we should let you author sov 3.0 Everyone totally buys it. "The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain." |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13259
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 18:59:00 -
[434] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:baltec1 wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote: Right now, we have no established foundation for small group effectiveness against blob tactics, and also nothing exists to effectively threaten sov establishments created by blob tactics.
I believe we need to place a clear foundation for small groups being effective against the sov establishments.
I feel we need to retire the mantra of blob or GTFO.
For this you need to limit the free social interaction we currently have in-game and out-of-game. This "current situation" has happened because people are allowed to talk to each other and gather in numbers to get safety. Not at all. We simply need to allow small groups to be able to inflict damage on the blobs. Hence the need for the logi nerf. That sounds lovely, we'll get more explosions per fight and implant prices go up. WIn-win. It's still not going to get "Random Hisec Alliance 93653" to venture out to null. Maybe 30 alliances who don't own sov now would try to get a few systems, but they could be coralled into a single region as pets to shoot at
Thats where all of the other changes in our plan come into play. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13259
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:01:00 -
[435] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote: Not at all. We simply need to allow small groups to be able to inflict damage on the blobs. Hence the need for the logi nerf.
And here comes Captain 'Morale Killmails' to drag his tired lines out hoping no one will notice it will do the exact opposite of what he claims. Go ahead and reply to my previous comment citing nothing will ever impact goons so we should let you author sov 3.0 Everyone totally buys it.
We have two days to respond to any reinforcement timer. No matter how much you nerf power projection our fleets will be there waiting for you and you will not be able to scratch them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4381
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:11:00 -
[436] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:baltec1 wrote:Not at all. We simply need to allow small groups to be able to inflict damage on the blobs. Hence the need for the logi nerf. That sounds lovely, we'll get more explosions per fight and implant prices go up. WIn-win. It's still not going to get "Random Hisec Alliance 93653" to venture out to null. Maybe 30 alliances who don't own sov now would try to get a few systems, but they could be coralled into a single region as pets to shoot at If done correctly, the fringe of any alliances holdings that border NPC space would become perpetual hot zones, and only defended to hold back threats from systems farther inside the legendary blue doughnuts.
Would High sec players like "Random Hisec Alliance 93653" want to spend a weekend harassing that big alliance? Especially if there were dozens of other solo or small groups participating?
Yeah, I can see that happening, so I would say yes to expecting them participating. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:12:00 -
[437] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote: Not at all. We simply need to allow small groups to be able to inflict damage on the blobs. Hence the need for the logi nerf.
And here comes Captain 'Morale Killmails' to drag his tired lines out hoping no one will notice it will do the exact opposite of what he claims. Go ahead and reply to my previous comment citing nothing will ever impact goons so we should let you author sov 3.0 Everyone totally buys it. We have two days to respond to any reinforcement timer. No matter how much you nerf power projection our fleets will be there waiting for you and you will not be able to scratch them.
And just ignore that part of fixing this mess means the only way to hurt someone shouldn't revolve around a static object with 2 day timers.
Your circular logic gains you zero points. You just run around the same track of self-reinforcing talking points. What are you, an evangalist? "The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain." |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13259
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:15:00 -
[438] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
And just ignore that part of fixing this mess means the only way to hurt someone shouldn't revolve around a static object with 2 day timers.
Your circular logic gains you zero points. You just run around the same track of self-reinforcing talking points. What are you, an evangalist?
You still have not explained how anyone would be able to do anything to our fleets other than die horribly. Also POS timers are not up for being changed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4381
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:26:00 -
[439] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
And just ignore that part of fixing this mess means the only way to hurt someone shouldn't revolve around a static object with 2 day timers.
Your circular logic gains you zero points. You just run around the same track of self-reinforcing talking points. What are you, an evangalist?
You still have not explained how anyone would be able to do anything to our fleets other than die horribly. Also POS timers are not up for being changed. POS timers grant an awful lot of stability. With proper warning, that rag tag fleet attacking can be met with a well ordered capital fleet and support ships.
Which would you suggest eliminating? The timers The rag tag fleet's chances of success Capital fleets
Honestly, I don't see all three co-existing at the same time.
Logi boats can be pushed into a different direction as well, though I feel it assumes a significant amount to say they are the deciding point in this context. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked... |
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:27:00 -
[440] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
And just ignore that part of fixing this mess means the only way to hurt someone shouldn't revolve around a static object with 2 day timers.
Your circular logic gains you zero points. You just run around the same track of self-reinforcing talking points. What are you, an evangalist?
You still have not explained how anyone would be able to do anything to our fleets other than die horribly. Also POS timers are not up for being changed.
See what I mean? What are you even talking about?
"Logi nerf will fix everything because of morale killmais" and mix in some "and no one do anything but die around us"
We literally were JUST DISCUSSING the idea of ways and impact of smaller groups being able to hit larger ones and you come up with "POS timers aren't being changed"
The sum total of your posting here is either pasting "the plan" you and your friends came up with or trying to deflect and change the topic when anyone suggests something that isn't in YOUR post.
This is a thread for discussion. I can at least consider (and enjoy) entertaining others ideas.
You aren't interested in any of that. Your here to sell a line.
And bluntly and poorly at that I might add. Hell, last page you literally posted the exact same post you have already in this thread, and you've done that nearly SEVERAL TIMES between these two discussion threads.
Do you honestly think anyone isn't smelling what you're cutting? "The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain." |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13260
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:33:00 -
[441] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
And just ignore that part of fixing this mess means the only way to hurt someone shouldn't revolve around a static object with 2 day timers.
Your circular logic gains you zero points. You just run around the same track of self-reinforcing talking points. What are you, an evangalist?
You still have not explained how anyone would be able to do anything to our fleets other than die horribly. Also POS timers are not up for being changed. See what I mean? What are you even talking about? "Logi nerf will fix everything because of morale killmais" and mix in some "and no one do anything but die around us" We literally were JUST DISCUSSING the idea of ways and impact of smaller groups being able to hit larger ones and you come up with "POS timers aren't being changed" The sum total of your posting here is either pasting "the plan" you and your friends came up with or trying to deflect and change the topic when anyone suggests something that isn't in YOUR post. This is a thread for discussion. I can at least consider (and enjoy) entertaining others ideas. You aren't interested in any of that. Your here to sell a line. And bluntly and poorly at that I might add. Hell, last page you literally posted the exact same post you have already in this thread, and you've done that nearly SEVERAL TIMES between these two discussion threads. Do you honestly think anyone isn't smelling what you're cutting?
When we have highsec NPC alts posting terrible ideas and simply not understanding the mechanics of null and what the problems are we tend to have to repeat ourselves. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 19:57:00 -
[442] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I am only here to troll people and post "my plan" over and over
Is that supposed to be a burn?
I don't know what's funnier. Your weak comebacks? Or that you think someone in an organization that embodies everything wrong with null should be the ones listened to about how to fix it?
There are hundreds upon hundreds of us that played the null game. Most of us for years upon years. Through many wars, alliances and metas. And WE LEFT because it is failed and broken.
You stay because identity with the group is where you draw your endgame. Accomplishment only pertaining the propagation of a stale status quo.
You embrace a failed endgame. The winner of all the losers. We moved on, and if CCP ever wants people like us to return to space, we're the ones they'll be listening to. Not you.
If all they want to do is cling to the remaining subs in null, you're their guy I'm sure. But if they want people to be interested in it again? To join the game to become a part of it, you are aboslutely the last person they should ask for an opinion from.
"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain." |
Triget
Sturm Und Drang Pasta Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 20:02:00 -
[443] - Quote
Baltec, I seem to have missed where the proposals you put forth would substantially change anything in nullsec except in making things substantially better for those who currently own it. Yes, nullsec income is really terrible. I remember running through null the first time 6 years ago and seeing asteroids I'd never seen before and telling my mining friends. I saw rats worth more that L3 missions. You could get rich out there!! I think that, instead of mission running in player-owned nulsec stations, perhaps anoms that drop non-isk rewards. Minerals, moon goo, salvage, maybe tags to turn in for LP. Make those anoms dynamic across the region so trusec effectively shifts around, but have each system normally able to hold 10-15 people. But if we do that, we will just end up with what we have, but the same powers much wealthier.
Caps are an issue, but they can be killed when not supported by another 100 of them quite easily. An easy fix there would be to have damage applied to them scale with signature radius, and reps applied to them scale inversely to their sig radius. Jump spool up times, ewar vulnerability, these can be exchanged for a super station that one can dock them in. Can you imagine a super holding super station in VFK that is a loot pinata?
N+1 This is not really an issue. The larger problem is that an alliance can take 100 guys and be winning fights against 200, think BL versus TEST. But when push comes to shove, if those 100 wanted to fight for the space, they would find themselves fighting 100 versus 750 and quickly lose. Getting kills because logistics suck isn't going to take way the sting of losing because you picked a fight against one much larger alliance and ended up fighting 10 alliances. This is because the problem is not one of mechanics, but rather a problem of the players and the current political landscape.
Sov yes, structures have way too many hit points, and the ability to time the reinforce just to be annoying, is really, well, annoying. Remember TEST in the Fountain war? AU TZ fights for all!. But you and I know that the last few major wars were not won or lost because of structure hit points, they were lost because of unrelenting pressure by a force that had 30k pilots to pull from with unlimited SRP and would never burn out, culminating in a (the only) major fight and the end of the war.
In order to break the current depressing order, CCP would have to break sov, hard. That would upset many if not most of the pilots currently benefiting from it. The only reasonable alternative is to create an functional alternative in which to try new mechanics and dynamics and if they work, impose them upon nulsec. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
479
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 20:13:00 -
[444] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote: Some ideas are good, some are horrible. But Lost presented a slightly better argument then "No one likes to scan."
You also should go do it. The only people who think scanning moons isn't a soul sapping, mind numbing activity are people who have never done it.
If you're trying to maintain inventory of 50 systems and 100s of moons or perhaps maintian control of all the r64 moons in eve, then I can see your point.
On the other hand, if you are only maintaining inventory in 5 or so systems, well the possible rewards may suddenly balance out the work involved in scanning moons.
This is about breaking up big blue donuts, not preserving them. I can taste your fear on this issue. It's delicious.
Do you have any other cons for maintaining control of vast quantities of free isk beyond it's difficult? Please don't go with "It's not passive enough" cuz I'm thinking the majority of eve would be delighted if the current choke hold on free passive isk were to go away. They won't unsub because YOU can't get free isk. They'll go play eve like always...
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13262
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 20:53:00 -
[445] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:baltec1 wrote:Azami Nevinyrall wrote: Some ideas are good, some are horrible. But Lost presented a slightly better argument then "No one likes to scan."
You also should go do it. The only people who think scanning moons isn't a soul sapping, mind numbing activity are people who have never done it. If you're trying to maintain inventory of 50 systems and 100s of moons or perhaps maintian control of all the r64 moons in eve, then I can see your point. On the other hand, if you are only maintaining inventory in 5 or so systems, well the possible rewards may suddenly balance out the work involved in scanning moons. This is about breaking up big blue donuts, not preserving them. I can taste your fear on this issue. It's delicious. Do you have any other cons for maintaining control of vast quantities of free isk beyond it's difficult? Please don't go with "It's not passive enough" cuz I'm thinking the majority of eve would be delighted if the current choke hold on free passive isk were to go away. They won't unsub because YOU can't get free isk. They'll go play eve like always...
The idea I posted would result in us losing at least 80% of our space overnight and would remove the invincibility our fleets currently enjoy. As for Moon goo, it is not the isk fountain you think it is. The best towers produce a little less than what a single ice miner earns a month. The vast bulk of our isk comes from other sources, the age of tech is over and has been for a long time now. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 21:06:00 -
[446] - Quote
Really if they had any sense they would just contact the groups that are in the position of fighting the large power blocs on a daily basis. And in a blob type/power projection/ overwelming logistics type scenarios. And just ask them their take on the largest barriers to entry in SOV null. Most of us are confined to NPC null , due to the issues that do not allow us to hold or take SOV.
groups like TRI, BL, PASTA, MOA ,,,ect ect .
we all face the same challenges against the power blocs, and have a very good eye level view of what changes are needed to allow smaller groups to flourish.
most have been mentioned in this thread.
All of those groups listed have easily reachable active players in leadership positions who would be more than willing to discuss the whole issue.
allowing the fox to dictate to the chickens whats best for them, is not the best Idea. Especially since the CSM is mostly foxes.
Mass
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13263
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 21:07:00 -
[447] - Quote
Triget wrote:Baltec, I seem to have missed where the proposals you put forth would substantially change anything in nullsec except in making things substantially better for those who currently own it.
Losing the bulk of our empire, shutting down the bulk of our bridge network, removing our fleets invincibility and having supers be vulnerable to E-war are all massive nerfs to us.
Triget wrote: I saw rats worth more that L3 missions. You could get rich out there!!
Belt ratting is among the worst isk/hr activities in the game. Level 3s in empire space can generate up to 84 mil/hr, belt ratting isn't even a quarter of that.
Triget wrote: N+1 This is not really an issue.
It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL.
Triget wrote: In order to break the current depressing order, CCP would have to break sov, hard. That would upset many if not most of the pilots currently benefiting from it.
Notice that not a single null power is in favor of keeping the status quo. Our leadership is actively campaigning for change and has been for years. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Felix Judge
Gallente Volunteer Defense Forces Spaceship Samurai
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 21:45:00 -
[448] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Triget wrote:[...] N+1 This is not really an issue. It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL. As much as I dislike agreeing with a Goon ;-) , I think this is correct: as long as sov changes happen one system at a time, with a timer (or timers) known two days ahead of time, the n+1 group will always gain sov or keep it if they want simply by piling their entire armada into said system. Therefore, the n+1 groups were the more successful ones and emerged as the dominant species in nul until basically two large blocs were left (and two or three smaller ones, who exist only because the two large ones decided not to bother for whatever reason...).
A change would have to be something that removed the "be there with all you have at a certain point of time". |
Triget
Sturm Und Drang Pasta Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 21:48:00 -
[449] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Losing the bulk of our empire, shutting down the bulk of our bridge network, removing our fleets invincibility and having supers be vulnerable to E-war are all massive nerfs to us.
Losing the bulk of your empire and your JB netowrk is only contingent on making sov usage based, which is the poorest formed of your ideas. How many members would be happy to see assets stuck in stations that see little ratting? VFK is currently showing zero npc kills, and I imagine mining isn't a major activity there. Your fleets invincibility arises from the fact that you use the plural to describe it. Nerfing supers nerfs your foes more than it does yours, and we all know that the strength of the CFC is in its subcaps. So yes, relatively speaking, it benefits the CFC over PL/N3.
baltec1 wrote:Belt ratting is among the worst isk/hr activities in the game. Level 3s in empire space can generate up to 84 mil/hr, belt ratting isn't even a quarter of that.
This just misses the point. I was agreeing with you that nulsec income needs love, but I disagree with mission running as the solution. We agree on ends, just not means here.
baltec1 wrote:It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL.
N+1 isn't the problem, N+250, + maybe another 1000 if sov is threatened is the problem. That's the point I was trying to make. If the changes you propose increases kills in 100 man versus 255 (plus 1000 more if needed) fights, it still would not succeed in increasing the morale enough to keep them contesting sov.
baltec1 wrote:Notice that not a single null power is in favor of keeping the status quo. Our leadership is actively campaigning for change and has been for years.
Your leadership has been campaigning for change, but its always in the same format. Change that might hurt you, but hurts your most immediate adversaries most. Tech nerf, tracking dread nerf etc., those are what you pushed that might have hurt your bottom line, but hurt your foes more.
If your leadership really wished to change the status quo, you have it in your power to do so, and have had that power for years. I don't find the crocodile tears convincing. Disband GSF, move to Curse and I'll be thoroughly impressed. |
Triget
Sturm Und Drang Pasta Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 21:57:00 -
[450] - Quote
Felix Judge wrote:baltec1 wrote:Triget wrote:[...] N+1 This is not really an issue. It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL. As much as I dislike agreeing with a Goon ;-) , I think this is correct: as long as sov changes happen one system at a time, with a timer (or timers) known two days ahead of time, the n+1 group will always gain sov or keep it if they want simply by piling their entire armada into said system. Therefore, the n+1 groups were the more successful ones and emerged as the dominant species in nul until basically two large blocs were left (and two or three smaller ones, who exist only because the two large ones decided not to bother for whatever reason...). A change would have to be something that removed the "be there with all you have at a certain point of time".
Here's the original quote. It makes more sense in context.
Triget wrote:N+1 This is not really an issue. The larger problem is that an alliance can take 100 guys and be winning fights against 200, think BL versus TEST. But when push comes to shove, if those 100 wanted to fight for the space, they would find themselves fighting 100 versus 750 and quickly lose. Getting kills because logistics suck isn't going to take way the sting of losing because you picked a fight against one much larger alliance and ended up fighting 10 alliances. This is because the problem is not one of mechanics, but rather a problem of the players and the current political landscape.
I was trying to point out that the solution will not work. Felix, you were there when BL started hitting Neo towers and their Loki fleet was killing TEST Drakes and Tribe Geddons left and right. 100 can easily beat the 200-300 we brought, but they would be stupid to have actually contested the sov because the whole HBC would come. This is a red herring argument that I hopefully addressed above. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |