open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Has Dominion Made Things A Whole Lot Worse In EVE?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Xtover
Suicide Kings
Posted - 2010.02.08 16:38:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Xtover on 08/02/2010 16:38:21
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Nooma K'Larr
If eve is ever to become "chess-like" then the answer is to limit the sizes of alliances. This will force the creation of more smaller alliances fighting for space.
I am mortified to find myself in agreement with you, but I do agree.


like legion of death and shadow of death?
like AAA and AAA citizens?

They're pet alliances, but it doesn't matter.

No you'll just see more and more "coalitions" of alliances that are essentially the same.

Desdemona Neptune
Posted - 2010.02.08 17:01:00 - [32]
 

All of these arguments about whether or not Dominion or EVE in general is "fair" to the "little guy" or "small alliance" are sort of pointless. The political dynamics playing out in 0.0 space are entirely in keeping with real-world history, both modern and ancient.

Let's look at "The History of the Pelopennesian War" by Thucydides, which includes the famous "Melian Dialogue." This passage recounts negotiations between Athens and the smaller city of Melios, from whom the Athenians demanded tribute and submission.

The Melians used every rhetorical argument available, calling upon principles of honor, the effects their submission would have on the rest of Greece, their willingness to be friendly neutrals, etc. The Athenians replied that all of their arguments were meaningless, saying "The strong do as they wish, while the weak suffer they must."

The Melians refused to comply; Athens attacked. After a long siege, Melios was betrayed from within and conquered by the Athenians, who promptly put all of the Melian men to the sword, sold the women and children as slaves, and colonized the city themselves.

So what does this have to do with EVE and the endless wars in nullsec? The story neatly explains everything that happens out there (excepting of course game mechanics issues like lag.) Corps form alliances, alliances get bigger, big alliances form coalitions, and the biggest/strongest of them dominate the rest. Periodically one combination gets strong enough to defeat the reigning power -- frequently assisted by treachery, as the Mittani can attest -- and the cycle continues.

Most of you (many? some? at least a few?) will note that there is no long an Athenian empire. Nor is there a Roman, Byzantine, Mongolian, Ottoman, British, or (soon enough anyway) American empire. Great empires seem to reach a breaking point and fall beneath their own weight.

Asking CCP to artificially level the field so that "small alliances" somehow have space-holding power equal to that of "big alliances" is simply unrealistic. The basic premise of the nullsec game is that players are free to fight one another for control. No matter what version of sov mechanics one uses, the larger/stronger team will always defeat the smaller one. This is exactly what happened in the Pure Blind War: the Triumverate coalition enjoyed initial success against Mostly Hamrless, which they outnumbered in the beginning; when the rest of the NC arrived, Tri & friends were outnumbered, and were defeated.

Yes, yes, I know about Thermopylae. Their killboard probably looked great, but the Spartans still lost.

CommmanderInChief
Posted - 2010.02.08 17:06:00 - [33]
 

can we move on from the small vs big only argument please, its not just about that..there is a WHOLE bigger story here..i feel we have focused it purely on that subject, when it was just a small statement to the bigger picture. ta Smile

Tulisin Dragonflame
Posted - 2010.02.08 17:20:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 08/02/2010 17:21:09
Originally by: Desdemona Neptune
All of these arguments about whether or not Dominion or EVE in general is "fair" to the "little guy" or "small alliance" are sort of pointless. The political dynamics playing out in 0.0 space are entirely in keeping with real-world history, both modern and ancient.

Let's look at "The History of the Pelopennesian War" by Thucydides, which includes the famous "Melian Dialogue." This passage recounts negotiations between Athens and the smaller city of Melios, from whom the Athenians demanded tribute and submission.

The Melians used every rhetorical argument available, calling upon principles of honor, the effects their submission would have on the rest of Greece, their willingness to be friendly neutrals, etc. The Athenians replied that all of their arguments were meaningless, saying "The strong do as they wish, while the weak suffer they must."

The Melians refused to comply; Athens attacked. After a long siege, Melios was betrayed from within and conquered by the Athenians, who promptly put all of the Melian men to the sword, sold the women and children as slaves, and colonized the city themselves.

So what does this have to do with EVE and the endless wars in nullsec? The story neatly explains everything that happens out there (excepting of course game mechanics issues like lag.) Corps form alliances, alliances get bigger, big alliances form coalitions, and the biggest/strongest of them dominate the rest. Periodically one combination gets strong enough to defeat the reigning power -- frequently assisted by treachery, as the Mittani can attest -- and the cycle continues.

Most of you (many? some? at least a few?) will note that there is no long an Athenian empire. Nor is there a Roman, Byzantine, Mongolian, Ottoman, British, or (soon enough anyway) American empire. Great empires seem to reach a breaking point and fall beneath their own weight.

Asking CCP to artificially level the field so that "small alliances" somehow have space-holding power equal to that of "big alliances" is simply unrealistic. The basic premise of the nullsec game is that players are free to fight one another for control. No matter what version of sov mechanics one uses, the larger/stronger team will always defeat the smaller one. This is exactly what happened in the Pure Blind War: the Triumverate coalition enjoyed initial success against Mostly Hamrless, which they outnumbered in the beginning; when the rest of the NC arrived, Tri & friends were outnumbered, and were defeated.

Yes, yes, I know about Thermopylae. Their killboard probably looked great, but the Spartans still lost.


I'm not necessarily opposed to larger and stronger groups getting access to the shiniest resources, but it irks me that big alliances will do everything to keep other people out of space they aren't actually using for e-peen reasons. Most of nullsec sits empty when it could be flourishing. IMO, the key to getting the big powers to let other corps/alliances in would be some way for them to directly benefit without some sort of rent arrangement. Allow newbie_industry_corp to set up their tower deep in your sovereignty region and you get some sort of benefit with no threat to your sovereignty and those systems don't simply sit barren. If the big alliances actually had the folks required to utilize the resources they so vehemently claim, my opinion would be much different, but this is simply the biggest kid in the room putting all the toys in a pile and standing in front of them without playing with them.

In short, it really isn't Athens conquering Melios because they want a shiny new city as much as Athens doing it "for the lulz", burning Melios to the ground, and taking the loss in trade that implies.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.02.08 17:49:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: XXSketchxx on 08/02/2010 17:52:14
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Man I wish big alliances would rent out space


This is already happening, and increasing constantly. With moon goo having been nerfed pretty heavily from its former glory and sov upkeep costs being through the roof when systems are upgraded, rent is slowly taking precedence as primary income in 0.0 sov space.

Dominion has not fixed everything entirely, but it has definitely moved a lot more people out into 0.0. They may be renters/pets, but at least they're there now. Who's saying they can't revolt? Twisted Evil

Check out this post for more discussion on why "renters are the future"


JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.02.08 17:50:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 08/02/2010 17:53:33
Comparision Before and after dominimion.

Moon gold : check
Autopiloting through 0.0 and surviving : check
Full of empty 0.0 systems : check
Blob warfare : check
Controlling space just for the sake of controlling it : check
Capships onlince : check

Dominion = failed.

It has nothing to do with Big vs Small , and all those big alliances here and their alts know.

Daenosa
Ghost Festival
Posted - 2010.02.08 17:50:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: XXSketchxx
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Who's saying they can't revolt? Twisted Evil




this, as long as this is possible then eve will continue to be very interesting.

Tulisin Dragonflame
Posted - 2010.02.08 18:17:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: XXSketchxx
Edited by: XXSketchxx on 08/02/2010 17:52:14
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Man I wish big alliances would rent out space


This is already happening, and increasing constantly. With moon goo having been nerfed pretty heavily from its former glory and sov upkeep costs being through the roof when systems are upgraded, rent is slowly taking precedence as primary income in 0.0 sov space.

Dominion has not fixed everything entirely, but it has definitely moved a lot more people out into 0.0. They may be renters/pets, but at least they're there now. Who's saying they can't revolt? Twisted Evil

Check out this post for more discussion on why "renters are the future"




I guess what I'm really waiting for is for rent prices to stabilize. If they want 100 mil/week and they've still got empty systems, the solution is to lower rent prices and let poorer corps/alliances in. Alas, rent isn't very malleable because it often amounts to a post on a forum somewhere that gets edited every once in a while.

Something like empire charters would be cool, where renting rights could be bought and sold on the open market, and therefore actually find their optimal pricepoint that people are willing to pay.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2010.02.08 18:39:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame


Something like empire charters would be cool, where renting rights could be bought and sold on the open market, and therefore actually find their optimal pricepoint that people are willing to pay.


There was talk of a treaty system during Dominion development. Hopefully we will see this implemented in the future (but more likely it will fade into the background akin to storefronts).

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.08 18:39:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame


In short, it really isn't Athens conquering Melios because they want a shiny new city as much as Athens doing it "for the lulz", burning Melios to the ground, and taking the loss in trade that implies.


That's not a totally inaccurate description of what actually happened. Athens reduced Melios not because Melios was any direct threat or had anything Athens needed, or even wanted, or had acted with Athens' enemies, but merely because Athens wanted to demonstrate the consequences of disobedience to Athens.

Droog 1
Posted - 2010.02.08 18:43:00 - [41]
 

Despite the hype very little has changed.

Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2010.02.08 18:52:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Desdemona Neptune
All of these arguments about whether or not Dominion or EVE in general is "fair" to the "little guy" or "small alliance" are sort of pointless. The political dynamics playing out in 0.0 space are entirely in keeping with real-world history, both modern and ancient.

Let's look at "The History of the Pelopennesian War" by Thucydides, which includes the famous "Melian Dialogue." This passage recounts negotiations between Athens and the smaller city of Melios, from whom the Athenians demanded tribute and submission.

The Melians used every rhetorical argument available, calling upon principles of honor, the effects their submission would have on the rest of Greece, their willingness to be friendly neutrals, etc. The Athenians replied that all of their arguments were meaningless, saying "The strong do as they wish, while the weak suffer they must."

The Melians refused to comply; Athens attacked. After a long siege, Melios was betrayed from within and conquered by the Athenians, who promptly put all of the Melian men to the sword, sold the women and children as slaves, and colonized the city themselves.

So what does this have to do with EVE and the endless wars in nullsec? The story neatly explains everything that happens out there (excepting of course game mechanics issues like lag.) Corps form alliances, alliances get bigger, big alliances form coalitions, and the biggest/strongest of them dominate the rest. Periodically one combination gets strong enough to defeat the reigning power -- frequently assisted by treachery, as the Mittani can attest -- and the cycle continues.

Most of you (many? some? at least a few?) will note that there is no long an Athenian empire. Nor is there a Roman, Byzantine, Mongolian, Ottoman, British, or (soon enough anyway) American empire. Great empires seem to reach a breaking point and fall beneath their own weight.

Asking CCP to artificially level the field so that "small alliances" somehow have space-holding power equal to that of "big alliances" is simply unrealistic. The basic premise of the nullsec game is that players are free to fight one another for control. No matter what version of sov mechanics one uses, the larger/stronger team will always defeat the smaller one. This is exactly what happened in the Pure Blind War: the Triumverate coalition enjoyed initial success against Mostly Hamrless, which they outnumbered in the beginning; when the rest of the NC arrived, Tri & friends were outnumbered, and were defeated.

Yes, yes, I know about Thermopylae. Their killboard probably looked great, but the Spartans still lost.


Eve isn't even remotely similar to that situation.
Athens wanted something which they got from the war I assume.
However the situation we have in eve atm is more similar to the US attacking Canada and throwing everyone in Canada out due to not wanting a neighbour.

It is way to easy to project power in eve compared to the real life. The costs of doing it is basically zero. In real life the costs of projecting power is massive and noone (almost) would think of emptying a entire nation of people to fun.

Catherine Frasier
Posted - 2010.02.08 18:53:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Xtover
They're pet alliances, but it doesn't matter.

No you'll just see more and more "coalitions" of alliances that are essentially the same.
I agree that we'd see more coalitions but I disagree that these are the same as alliances. While coalitions are certainly similar they are extra-mechanical. Coalitions don't affect Sov, for example. This allows for a more fluid loyalty and for far looser, more tentative or partial relationships. I see that as a very, very good thing.

Hesperius
Posted - 2010.02.08 19:05:00 - [44]
 

95% of the "problems" with Eve is the attitude and point of view of the players. 4% is the ongoing problems. 1% is from stuff added in Dominion, that will be corrected shortly.

Jones Bones
Burning Napalm
Posted - 2010.02.08 19:16:00 - [45]
 

0.0 Sov wars are still terrible, moar at 11!


Demolishar
Posted - 2010.02.08 20:36:00 - [46]
 

Dominion was a terrible patch, it made my Curses go up in price by 50M Crying or Very sad

Sumelar
Posted - 2010.02.08 20:48:00 - [47]
 

The one thing that people who whine about "blobs" don't understand is, you can't remove them without utterly destroying the game. The only way would be to limit the number of ships in a system or on a grid or whatever, which would only favor the defenders. Put that number of ships in a system and it can never be attacked, let alone conquered.

Superior numbers win battles. This is a basic theory of warfare, whether you think it's fair or not.

Dominion wasn't supposed to make small corps able to hold space. The sheer number of freighters destroyed in the day after launch proved that.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2010.02.08 21:03:00 - [48]
 

I am the primary scout for a small 0.0 based nomadic corporation. We are not affiliated with any alliances and we move around quite a bit. I'm not in a position to talk about the "overall" effect of Dominion, but since the patch I/we have seen:

1. New, and smaller, alliances setting up shop in 0.0 (will they last? dunno)
2. New and established groups showing an increased willingness to talk with "neutrals". There seems to have been a rekindling of diplomacy as people figure out where they stand post-Dominion.

So far so good from my perspective. I look forward to seeing how the dust continues to settle.




Oddymandius
Minmatar
Red Federation
Posted - 2010.02.08 21:09:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
the situation we have in eve atm is more similar to the US attacking Canada and throwing everyone in Canada out due to not wanting a neighbour.
If you think of Canada as a pet Alliance, mostly industrial without much of a PvP base, your analogy is represented very closely in Eve.
Quote:

It is way to easy to project power in eve compared to the real life. The costs of doing it is basically zero. In real life the costs of projecting power is massive and noone (almost) would think of emptying a entire nation of people to fun.
There's a problem with the geography of New Eden being too easy to circumvent. I think CCP could do with making moving capital ships slower and more risky, so it's possible to attack groups of reinforcements en route to a battle. Done properly that could encourage more localised conflicts, instead of two huge power blocs which only expose themselves to loss of assets when sov timers are due.

Catherine Frasier
Posted - 2010.02.08 21:26:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Oddymandius
There's a problem with the geography of New Eden being too easy to circumvent. I think CCP could do with making moving capital ships slower and more risky
That's an excellent suggestion, unfortunately CCP seems to be inclined in entirely the opposite direction.

RootEmerger
Posted - 2010.02.08 22:27:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Sumelar
The one thing that people who whine about "blobs" don't understand is, you can't remove them without utterly destroying the game. The only way would be to limit the number of ships in a system or on a grid or whatever, which would only favor the defenders. Put that number of ships in a system and it can never be attacked, let alone conquered.

Superior numbers win battles. This is a basic theory of warfare, whether you think it's fair or not.


I agree that this is not a solvable problem, but disagree on his cause - the "blob" problem comes mostly from lack of strategical choices by game mechanic as players have too much mobility and objectives take too much time to be conquered.

There's no gain in making feints as your enemy will need just a few minutes to check it and move to the true target, its stupid to devide your fleed to make a multi pronged attack against multiple targets as the enemy has all the time to make a massed counterattack on every site and kill you a bit at a time while you need days to get a system, and so on.

Mobility: you could remove jump clone, titan bridges, jump bridges, make warping and jumping a slower affair, this would solve the problem.... and make eve a lot less fun to play.

Time to conquer: You need four or more days to take any objective, by design - this becouse of timezones and the fact that eve has players all around the world.
you cant remove this without station pingpong - there's space for tweaking in the various timers and random gaps but that's that.

And then add to that all the tactical limiting factors, like the fact that you dont really have a front, all ships can hit in any direction even when massed without fear of friendly fire for eg - thing that wouldnt stop the blob but would put an hard limiting factor on -stupid- blobbing... and even this cant be fixed for hardware and software limitations...

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.02.08 22:54:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Oddymandius
There's a problem with the geography of New Eden being too easy to circumvent. I think CCP could do with making moving capital ships slower and more risky
That's an excellent suggestion, unfortunately CCP seems to be inclined in entirely the opposite direction.


This pretty sums its up.

Henri Rearden
Gallente
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:51:00 - [53]
 

How can any of you think we're in any position yet to determine whether or not Dominion has made things worse, or "failed?" Have you all had your heads under rocks so as to miss the fall of Goonswarm? The system has only BEGUN to move toward political equilibrium after the sov changes, and I daresay we will continue to see quite a lot of upheaval as things settle out. Because I have realized this, I am witholding my judgement for a good while as I observe the aftermath. Only in the next few months will we be able to say, with any reasonable certainty or legitimacy, that the costs for sovreignty were not increased enough. Alliances will rapidly expand into the power vacuum left by Goonswarm, but that does not mean they will hold it - they may collapse from the effort as their corporate wallets go the same way as the Goons', or they may have their space taken from them by those who don't have such large borders to defend. There is no way to tell utnil it happens.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.09 02:11:00 - [54]
 

Quote:
Asking CCP to artificially level the field so that "small alliances" somehow have space-holding power equal to that of "big alliances" is simply unrealistic.
I believe there is a way to do that. It's a very interesting subject from perspective of game theory.

Smaller entities benefit if the balance of offense/defense is shifted toward offense. If offensive power is increased so much so that even a small entity is capable of taking over 1 system, then such small entities become a real threat to large entities. Even tho the large entity would always have the ability to retake the system, a persistent small entity would have the ability to drain resources of the larger entity and divert its focus from other areas.

On top of that, you have to keep in mind that there are always more small entities than large ones. If many small entities can successfully tack and disrupt operations of large entity, than the large entity would be forced to either scale back to more defensible position or negotiate treaty with several smaller entities.

On the other hand, increasing defense vs offense has exact opposite effect. The higher the defensive power goes, the more small entities fail to match necessary offensive power. This allows strong powers to consolidate larger areas of influence, because the increased time/effort of successful attack gives them more room for counter strike and successful defense.

The main side effect of increasing offensive capabilities vs defensive ones is the "ping pong" effect - where ownership of territory changes hands frequently and results in more unstable/dangerous situation for local inhabitants. A long time ago, soon after first release of outposts, CCP decided that they don't like "ping pong" effect more than they don't like the "blobbing" effect.

A game designer has to choose balance between those 2 things, as usual there is no way to satisfy everyone.

Do we let small entities have more power at the cost of creating more chaos and instability within 0.0? Less industrial strength in 0.0 as side effect?
Or do we choose to let people secure their space, let industry flourish, and the cost of sidelining small entities and encouraging power block merging and blobbing?

It is interesting to note that same game theory principle applies to PvP combat for small and large gangs. And main handle for manipulating these effects is the balance between offense and defense.

WiseJoeyD
Posted - 2010.02.09 02:12:00 - [55]
 

Ok, I don't live in 0.0, but ive played alot there in the past.

So let me get this straight, OP is saying that in 0.0, it's too easy for bigger alliances to take space and harder for smaller alliances to take space?

Hmm, well first flaw in the original point is that in EVE size matters, you can't expect one small alliance to beat a bigger alliance, at some point skills and tactics just dont matter against a blob. What WILL help a smaller alliance beat a bigger alliance is DIPLOMACY, without it you'll fail.

Why are the big alliances big? Well, because as eve progresses, players become better, and these better players don't want to join some small alliance that has nothing to show for itself.

Look at IT though, they will not hold all those regions for long imho, you've heard it first here. It's just WAY too much space for one alliance to defend, how can smaller alliances help? By using diplomacy with other smaller alliances to organise attacks throughout their space to split up their forces.

OP is asking/whinging for CCP to fix something which is realistically out of their control, do u want them to place a cap on how many players can be on a given grid or in a fleet at one given time? These are both very exploitable, hard to implement and easy to get around.

Honestly, I would take a guess that 90% of 0.0 dwellers do not want to go back to the old SOV system where u had to shoot POS all day, to me it seems like the current system is a huge improvement on the old one, when i look at sov maps and read in forums, it sounds pretty awesome how dynamic the new system is. (Yes i also hear how the lag is ruining this, if they sort it out to a reasonable degree then i'm sure we'll see an improvement in people's responses to Dominion).

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:35:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote:
Asking CCP to artificially level the field so that "small alliances" somehow have space-holding power equal to that of "big alliances" is simply unrealistic.
I believe there is a way to do that. It's a very interesting subject from perspective of game theory.

Smaller entities benefit if the balance of offense/defense is shifted toward offense. If offensive power is increased so much so that even a small entity is capable of taking over 1 system, then such small entities become a real threat to large entities. Even tho the large entity would always have the ability to retake the system, a persistent small entity would have the ability to drain resources of the larger entity and divert its focus from other areas.

On top of that, you have to keep in mind that there are always more small entities than large ones. If many small entities can successfully tack and disrupt operations of large entity, than the large entity would be forced to either scale back to more defensible position or negotiate treaty with several smaller entities.

On the other hand, increasing defense vs offense has exact opposite effect. The higher the defensive power goes, the more small entities fail to match necessary offensive power. This allows strong powers to consolidate larger areas of influence, because the increased time/effort of successful attack gives them more room for counter strike and successful defense.

The main side effect of increasing offensive capabilities vs defensive ones is the "ping pong" effect - where ownership of territory changes hands frequently and results in more unstable/dangerous situation for local inhabitants. A long time ago, soon after first release of outposts, CCP decided that they don't like "ping pong" effect more than they don't like the "blobbing" effect.

A game designer has to choose balance between those 2 things, as usual there is no way to satisfy everyone.

Do we let small entities have more power at the cost of creating more chaos and instability within 0.0? Less industrial strength in 0.0 as side effect?
Or do we choose to let people secure their space, let industry flourish, and the cost of sidelining small entities and encouraging power block merging and blobbing?

It is interesting to note that same game theory principle applies to PvP combat for small and large gangs. And main handle for manipulating these effects is the balance between offense and defense.


Your post contains a number of unsupported implicit assumptions. The most obvious one is that "large" organisations are less able to co-ordinate a multi-front war than a coalition of smaller ones.

There is only one real change that CCP could make to favour the survival of small alliances in 0.0, and it is one that they have already made: to increase the potential economic carrying capacity of a player sov system such that a single constellation could theoretically be sufficient to sustain an alliance.

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:42:00 - [57]
 

More wormholes from high sec and low sec and other 00 into 00 space.
More 00 space
Sliding scale for sov cost
What happeened to comets with moon goo waiting ......
more 00 space and factional warfare for pirate factions
I like the idea of more risk or a timer for moving cap ships or a increased fuel cost depending on the amount jumping through a single cyno ( more jumps higher fuel cost)

Dr Karsun
Gallente
Coffee Lovers Brewing Club
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:57:00 - [58]
 

I do think that the new sov system promotes smaller alliances. Firstly - it's just a plain pain to hold sov. It costs a fortune to upgrade systems, it costs even a bigger fortune to maintain those upgrades, to defend the system, to keep jump bridges up and running. This is room for a small alliance -they come in, pay for upgrading a system, rent it out, place their own towers on all moons and mine it. The income from moon mining is getting poorer and poorer, true. But it's still probably the best source of income one can get without effort. Small alliances will work as farmers in the old days - they pay 10% for the allowance to use a field, they take 90%, but they also have to defend their territory. The big alliance that really owns the system will just keep the big guns and keep enemies from flying in.

Sov is a pain to keep and easy to lose now. It requires more resources - money wise and people wise. You can easily see how many sytems lost sov - small alliances have room for fun there now.

Decimus Octavius
Posted - 2010.02.09 11:30:00 - [59]
 

Perhaps whole new 0.0 regions that have rich resources, multiple empire routes and are capital & super capital free zones. This would allow smaller alliances or empire dwellers the opportunity to take and hold space without having the huge hurdle of the required isk of a capital ship fleet and the high skillpoint capital pilot characters.
Lets face it, at the moment if you try to take space in 0.0 unless you have a large cap fleet with super capitals and large support fleet you are not going to be able to do it. Even if an empire dwelling alliance magically managed to acquire such a fleet their inexperience compared to the established blocs would highly likely result in them loosing their cap fleet in the first few fights and any dream of taking space gone. Plus then subsequent trolling of how fail they are, rubbing the salt into the wounds making the pilots less likely to think of going to 0.0 ever again.
While existing power blocs could/would invade these regions it would be possible for smaller corps & alliances to band together with subcap fleets and fight back with an actual chance of winning.





Tulisin Dragonflame
Posted - 2010.02.09 11:37:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Decimus Octavius
Perhaps whole new 0.0 regions that have rich resources, multiple empire routes and are capital & super capital free zones. This would allow smaller alliances or empire dwellers the opportunity to take and hold space without having the huge hurdle of the required isk of a capital ship fleet and the high skillpoint capital pilot characters.
Lets face it, at the moment if you try to take space in 0.0 unless you have a large cap fleet with super capitals and large support fleet you are not going to be able to do it. Even if an empire dwelling alliance magically managed to acquire such a fleet their inexperience compared to the established blocs would highly likely result in them loosing their cap fleet in the first few fights and any dream of taking space gone. Plus then subsequent trolling of how fail they are, rubbing the salt into the wounds making the pilots less likely to think of going to 0.0 ever again.
While existing power blocs could/would invade these regions it would be possible for smaller corps & alliances to band together with subcap fleets and fight back with an actual chance of winning.


Please don't try to fix empty systems by adding more systems. I'd rather they just randomly explode all capitals in existence than create entire new regions to fix problems.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only