|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
All of that crap is directed by mittani and vince to make it easier for them to maintain their empires while pretending to create some content.
Oh just look at it, in 10minutes there were 30+upvotes from their F1 monkeys who were told to upvote this link and probably did so before they even finished reading it -_- |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Once this stops being exchange of arguments between moa and gsf, you could take in consideration that density isn't problem in null sec(number of anomalies is fine). Stagnation comes from boring and slow Sov capturing mechanics. More havens in system wont change absolutly anything |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:Petre en Thielles wrote:baltec1 wrote:We want those nerfed too. No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go. Are you aware of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction? Yeah thats gonna happen with that carebear deal pl and cfc signed...you two cant even drop super in a same region :P |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Emma Muutaras wrote:
as for destructible stations no just no i can see already that it will lead to massive amounts of players losing everything on the first day its in place and just quitting. it will be a case of needing enough supercaps to defend a station as a bench mark to enter null which i feel is kinda the opposite of what this idea is about.
No need. Just make simple rules. During the first month, all stuff in destroyed stations are moved to nearest low sec station, that will give time to everybody LEARN about it. Also make that any character Unsubscribed has their stuff always moved when they outpost is destroyed.
sounds complicated and bit unrealistic. Dunno how they wanna make this but I still havent heard any specific idea how they want to implement it. Removing players ability to build stations would prove interesting....leaving us with what we have built :D
On the other hand stations exploding with players assets may prove interesting way how to slow down inflation and money stockpilling in eve. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship. TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive. What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game. The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence.
Yes thats exactly how mittens wanted it to sound. Looking at it from more perspectives shows that it will hurt empires in no way, allows them to lessen their space and effort. I'm not saying some of those changes arent good for null, but decreasing null vulnarability, even in used systems and making power projection harder are way more important. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect. How does it exactly hurt them so much? |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Did somebody mention some complete proposal how that occupancy based SOV would work? I may have missed it...everything i read was very sketchy and without any actual details |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote:My suggestion nerfs or boosts various areas of nullsec dynamically, meaning that your huge alliance, currently sitting on the best content in game suddenly finds itself sitting on space not much better than low sec. How would that not drive conflict? Well it wouldn't really be "conflict". We'd just migrate to whatever section of space is now good and evict whoever is living there. Chances are we'd work out details with N3/PL so we can keep up the current PvP and continue to ensure survival for us both, much like B0TLRD keeps us from nuking each others income streams.
So "you"(lets admit SMA is irrelevant in the matter) pretty much admited that you are making this game so boring on purpose :P either way, running around and having to nuke out people would still be more interesting than current stagnation. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:This is simply because MoA does not have the organization, capability or competency to hold assets in space under current system.
Pretty much because every time they try they get blobbed by one unnamed 30k pilots big coalition which goes for any other alliance in this game, neither would any cfc alliance on it's own would be able to hold sov...except gsf probably. But this kind of discussion is off topic.
Im still more interested in idea about sov occupancy..."leaders of nullsec" did make their famous open letter but didn't really say how to implement it. I don't suppose system would belong to anyone who would rat there most right? Eve conquering should be still about shooting stuff, space being unoccupied should only make this somehow easier. Maybe change to how strategic upgrades work would be viable? Technically military/industrial upgrades work on that principal already.
Right now you need to hold system for several days/weeks to be able to instal cyno jammer/beacon etc. Relating this occupancy could make power projection harder since you couldn't have cyno beacons in systems you dont use...but then again I don't see how that can be done.
I still think sov needs to be way more vulnarable, and not only in unoccupied systems. Systems on daily use must be easier to take as well, otherwise invasions/sov wars won't get very encouraged. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:baltec1 wrote: They are stuck outside of null sov because the current mechanics make it impossible for them to be able to do anything against us.
70% of the CFC losses come from non-sov holders, so owning sov isn't a pre-requisite of fighting. My question is, can you point at an organization that isn't killing CFC now and with this suggestion will start killing CFC? Where are they? baltec1 wrote:Its funny how the only people kicking up a stink in their thread just happen to also be the grr goon mob. Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion.
Actually Im pretty sure 70% of CFC losses come from Guristas |
|
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Ms Forum Alt wrote: The game is finished because the two largest blocs are too chicken to declare war on each other.
We have nothing to fight over, and any fight between us will also involve everyone else in Eve wanting to get on some titan KMs piling into a single system, and turning a 2 hour fight into a 20 hour fight.
well exactly! Eve null should be about nice fights where couple of alliances brawl it out together...not putting one coalition to two regions and having even more stupid tidi and lags |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 08:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Has anyone theory crafted a hybrid between occupancy & what we have now? TCU's or whatever to claim sov when the system is unoccupied, but if nothing happens (mining, ratting, production, whatever) in the system for a period of time you lose it? The upside is you wouldn't have to have people shooting red crosses or rocks to claim sov, but if your entire alliance deploys somewhere & neglects your home space, someone else can take it. Also occupancy doesn't have to be limited to ratting & mining activities.
Yeah thats pretty much what I was saying...claiming sov by ratting would be absolutly stupid imo. Occupancy should only result in alliance losing sov or some benefits and making it very vulnarable. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Regatto wrote:If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for. Because that does nothing to address the issue of grinding through ten of millions of ehp & how it currently takes 7 days of winning every single timer fight.
Ofcourse not, but it would still bring life back to null while ccp figures out new sov mechanics that work. It would create fights on every corner. Fights that are fun between smaller groups, with couple of hundred pilots and without 10% tidi. Anyone in null sec warfare can agree that fight between 500 dudes is more fun than 2500.
Honestly I know this won't happen, cause its obvious that ppl like Vince are egomaniacs that just want to hoard power and isk(lets wonder why). So basically, even though they have power, they won't do anything about it. They will rather have their members run around eve and dunk on some hopeless groups like provi to keep their pilots "entertained" and quiet. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Regatto wrote:All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient: because noone of them will weaken his own position. This is like you would ask to not bring as many people to the fight to make it fair.
yeah or asking them to play this game for fun instead of politics, power and money.
as I said, I dont believe this would happened :P ALthought if I remember correctly something similiar occured once, when DRF formed pretty much just to take down old NC, but that was for slightly different reasons. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet.
Mechanics? what I just said would bypass these mechanics. But then again, third time, for this to happen they would need to want make this game fun, and voluntarily give up big of their power. Although they would still remain dominant parts of null sec probably. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:JIeoH Mocc wrote:
If I would, I'd be having another corp/alliance ticker right now, don't you think? What does the mechanics have to do with you wanting an easy life-style? At least don't be a hypocrite. Any set of enforceable rules will succumb to that desire of yours to bunch up and "winwinwin", be it by dropping the node with a "thousand of megathrons(c)", having b0tl0rds of this kind or another, blobbing with titans and what not.
That's not something CCP CAN possibly fix. They can stir the pot a bit, but once everything settles into a steady state - that attitude of "If you had access to ..." will prevail. Always.
I hope they recognize it, and I hope that it settles in your head as well.
Given that I am also calling for our fleets to stop being unkillable I would say I understand. We are trying to get CCP to make changes that we cannot abuse.
There are like 50comments in this topic saying how you can abuse it...cant you just stop saying this now? :D |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:baltec1 wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote:
You broke it, YOU fix it.
Feel free to post a subcap counter to our boot fleet. I don't fight cowards. Yes, cowards. That is why you blue everyone. Oh, PLEASE, don't attack me and I won't attack you. That is what this is all about. Blue Doughnut. You are nice and safe because you won't attack each other. You even cry nerf on intercepters because a few come and attack you. Oh, yea, I've seen the tears on that also. Cry some more. You do realise that we are not blue with half of nullsec right? You know, this thread might not get any CCP response in it but at least they can see the poor arguments people are trying to use to keep the status quo.
No...? Only like 12 regions? :D while in another half you can't even use caps because of that deal with PL to keep your supers/caps safe? Just to be sure... |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Regatto wrote:Honestly I know this won't happen, cause its obvious that ppl like Vince are egomaniacs that just want to hoard power and isk(lets wonder why). So basically, even though they have power, they won't do anything about it. They will rather have their members run around eve and dunk on some hopeless groups like provi to keep their pilots "entertained" and quiet. No, it's because they are players of the game, not employees of CCP there to keep the game in check when the mechanics fail to do so. It's not their responsibility to step in and play differently when the developers of the game fail to design their game properly.
Exactly! I didn't say they would need to fix their games, just their heads. As leaders of the biggest groups, they should try to make game fun for their pilots, shouldn't they?? I mean why are you even following somebody who doesn't give a crap about you and just focuses on himself? Instead of trying to tell devs how to fix the game way they like, they could think how their subjects can have more fun in this game. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Arsine Mayhem wrote: You broke it, YOU fix it.
how exactly would you expect them to fix it? Reset friendly alliances? Cancel BOTLRD? There are still gazillions of structure HP noone wants to grind through at 0.1% tidi. C'mon, get real.
Thats the part pilots could change yes, ccp needs to change the rest. There won't be tidi if there are couple of alliances nuking it out. You also wont need to grind through 5regions of sov if you don't need to rent it out. |
|
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
It would be interesting to see changes if carriers could use RR only in triage...after all they are their name suggest that they should be platforms carrying ships/drones and not huge logistics. Its kinda like we would give guardian sentry drones |
|
|
|