open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Don't kill small scale PvP, foster it.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:17:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: E man Industries on 31/05/2011 15:20:19
Edited by: E man Industries on 31/05/2011 15:19:05
Small scale PvP is good for super large 0.0 alliances.
It gives pilots somethign fun to do when not blobing and fun is why they tollerate CTA, taxes, camps, and station bashes.

There needs to be more 10-30 man fleets acomplishing real goals and getting good fights.
Right now hot droping mom's that are more mobile than roving gangs make small scale PvP pointless and more of a diversion than a real tactic.

We need objectives a 10-30 man fleet can acomplish that will aid the blob or help move a soverighnty war past the stagnant nature it is currently in.

Edit:

Sujestions on how to achieve this and what limitations should be in place for encouraging small gang warfare should be discused more. Please post your ideas.

Also a clear statment of what small gang players want out of small gang warfare would help.

Statement:
Small gang warfare in 0.0 is lacking and requires more small scale objectives to foster this style of game play. Small gang 0.0 warfare should promote the following:
Encourage small gangs to form up,
give small gangs rewarding objectives,
Enable small gangs prompt a response from other alliances.
encourage gang on gang warfare.

Additions or qualifications to the above goals?


Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.12 13:18:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Camios on 12/04/2011 13:20:38


Big coalitions will practice small gang warfare only for fun, but when **** hits the fan, the batphone will ring and blobs will form.

Only small independent entities will fight in small engagements for their life, but small independent entities can't survive in nullsec.

The problem is that living in conquerable space requires a POS or an Outpost, and you need a blob to defend these structures against another blob.


Therefore we need small objectives for small gangs, but we even need small, cheap and hard to spot structures as a logistical backbone for small independent entities in 0.0; possibly a new kind of 'safety in space' should be designed, not based on effective hit points and reinforced states, but on invisibility and cheapness.

Arrenslew
Posted - 2011.04.12 13:29:00 - [3]
 

Why not small-ish player owned stations/mods/things to destroy that can be hidden behind "invulnerable" player-placed warp gates (as in mission style) that limit the size of the ship that can move through, or even the number of ships that can move through per hour.

Ladie Scarlet
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.12 21:38:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: E man Industries
There needs to be more 10-30 man fleets acomplishing real goals and getting good fights.

If you can't find small scale fights to satisfy your e-hounoure bs then you're not trying very hard.

FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2011.04.13 09:33:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: E man Industries

We need objectives a 10-30 man fleet can acomplish that will aid the blob or help move a soverighnty war past the stagnant nature it is currently in.

10-30 supercarriers can accomplish some sov war objectives, does it count as small scale warfare?Laughing

Fooled You
Posted - 2011.04.13 12:49:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Camios
Edited by: Camios on 12/04/2011 13:20:38
The problem is that living in conquerable space requires a POS or an Outpost, and you need a blob to defend these structures against another blob.


Therefore we need small objectives for small gangs, but we even need small, cheap and hard to spot structures as a logistical backbone for small independent entities in 0.0; possibly a new kind of 'safety in space' should be designed, not based on effective hit points and reinforced states, but on invisibility and cheapness.



This is a really great idea. Unfortunately, according to the last dev blog, it seems CSM only cares about fixing lag for their blob fleets. Not really a surprise, after all.

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 16:44:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: E man Industries

There needs to be more 10-30 man fleets acomplishing real goals and getting good fights.


What would you consider a "real goal"? There are plenty of things you can do with a 10-30 man fleet, why are none of them "real goals"?

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.04.13 16:51:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: White Tree on 13/04/2011 16:51:00
Originally by: Yeep
Originally by: E man Industries

There needs to be more 10-30 man fleets acomplishing real goals and getting good fights.


What would you consider a "real goal"? There are plenty of things you can do with a 10-30 man fleet, why are none of them "real goals"?
A group I spoke too want to be able to do real, significant damage to 0.0 infrastructure with small gangs and disrupt the operations of 0.0 alliances in a meaningful way. Take from that what you will.

Fooled You
Posted - 2011.04.13 18:48:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Yeep
What would you consider a "real goal"? There are plenty of things you can do with a 10-30 man fleet, why are none of them "real goals"?


Will highlight again for ya

Originally by: Camios
Only small independent entities will fight in small engagements for their life, but small independent entities can't survive in nullsec.

The problem is that living in conquerable space requires a POS or an Outpost, and you need a blob to defend these structures against another blob.

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 19:34:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Fooled You

Will highlight again for ya



I think you'll find there are plenty of small, independant entities surviving in NPC 0.0. As for conquerable space, Goonswarm has 6000 member and 60 sovereign systems for about 100 members per system. TEST has about 70 members per system, even PL has about 65 members per system (although I doubt they rat much in them). Explain how your 10-30 man organisation is 3-10 times more deserving of space than those people?

I've seen this "small gangs should be able to take space" argument before and what it usually boils down to is people are unaware of how much effort actually goes into taking and holding space. Or they know full well how much and don't want to have to do the work themselves.

Really what it comes down to is not the lack of goals available, but the fact people want disproportionate rewards for their input.

And for the record I don't think I've flown in a large fleet since Goonfleet's first invasion of Cloud Ring. Most of my PvP is gangs of 10-30 but I don't get worked up because I'm not causing lasting harm to anyone because my goals are proportionate to my the effort I'm putting in.

Fooled You
Posted - 2011.04.14 03:12:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Fooled You on 14/04/2011 03:13:50
Originally by: Yeep

I think you'll find there are plenty of small, independent entities surviving in NPC 0.0. As for conquerable space, Goonswarm has 6000 member and 60 sovereign systems for about 100 members per system. TEST has about 70 members per system, even PL has about 65 members per system (although I doubt they rat much in them). Explain how your 10-30 man organisation is 3-10 times more deserving of space than those people?


The amount of members per systems is not exactly the matter here. If a 70 members corp where able to defend and hold just ONE system against a bigger alliance, then things would be cool (I guess). But the fact is absolute numbers will pretty much wins over anything.

Originally by: Yeep
I've seen this "small gangs should be able to take space" argument before and what it usually boils down to is people are unaware of how much effort actually goes into taking and holding space. Or they know full well how much and don't want to have to do the work themselves.


The problem is, no matter how much effort people would want to put into it, maintaining anything in 0.0 requires large alliances and blobs. Its simple as that.

Originally by: Yeep
Really what it comes down to is not the lack of goals available, but the fact people want disproportionate rewards for their input.


We are not saying rewards should be as plentiful as big alliances have. Camius idea is really good. Maybe that king of 'covert and cheap' structure he is sugesting to suport a small corp / alliance could have a lot of limitations on its own, like only be able to be anchored on 0.0 to -0.2 (crap null sec, as they say), limited or not possible to moon mine, etc.

I think that giving smaller alliances a way to have some tiny influence in sov space would be good for everyone. More conflict, more guerrilha style wars, and more pew pew and fun for everyone. Wink

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.14 09:15:00 - [12]
 

So as I see it there are really 3 seperate issues here.

Firstly the perception that small fleets never happen, which I'm not convinced is true.

Secondly the idea that small entities should be able to hold space, which I'm completely in favour of. However what I don't agree with is that a small entity should be able to hold said space against a far larger one that wants to take it from them. You can either find space that nobody else wants or *gasp* use diplomacy. This is why I support the spirit of the anomaly changes if not the execution. There needs to be less desirable space that is still worth more than empire so that the first of those options actually becomes a practicality.

Thirdly theres this notion that a small entity should be able to affect sov of a larger one with small roaming gangs. This is often presented in the same context as the second idea but they're mutually incompatible. I often hear people say that timers aren't fair because they allow a large defense fleet to form. Well duh. If you could do significant damage to a large alliance's sov with a 30 man fleet, that same large alliance could do the same to 30 small alliances. This is why timers exist, to give people a chance to defend things. Having permenant damage which can be done by small groups in less time than it takes a defensive fleet to form just ****s small alliances. You can't have both 2 and 3.

Goddess Ishtar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.14 10:09:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Fooled You
I think that giving smaller alliances a way to have some tiny influence in sov space would be good for everyone. More conflict, more guerrilha style wars, and more pew pew and fun for everyone. Wink


Not really. What you're asking is to be able to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want to put in the effort of cutting a deal or making an alliance with entities that areable to hold sov and would prefer to fly around in small groups to harass those people. Fair enough but the tradeoff is that you don't get to do any real damage to their infrastructure. The influence you have is related directly to the time you actually spend in their systems hunting their pilots.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.04.14 20:25:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Yeep
So as I see it there are really 3 seperate issues here.

Firstly the perception that small fleets never happen, which I'm not convinced is true.


They do happen as they are fun but there is little reason for them and they often surve no great purpose towards larger wars. They are also not very common and are at risk of being blobed by a large more mobile force. Small fleets should be common and able to work towards sov objective or achieve some effect vs another alliance. Not saying they shoudl take space because that would be dumb.
Quote:


Secondly the idea that small entities should be able to hold space, which I'm completely in favour of. However what I don't agree with is that a small entity should be able to hold said space against a far larger one that wants to take it from them. You can either find space that nobody else wants or *gasp* use diplomacy. This is why I support the spirit of the anomaly changes if not the execution. There needs to be less desirable space that is still worth more than empire so that the first of those options actually becomes a practicality.



No issue here. Bigger group gets more and better space. It would be nice if it was easier to hold and defend a small amount of sov. from the larger sov holding forces. The current structure of 0.0 rewards mega alliances rather than smaller entities with smaller pacts of non agression. the result is super blobs and mega alliances as they can not be defended against. A small alliance wanting only 2-3 systems with 100 or so pilots can not defend them selves from the larger alliances. The larger alliance does not need the system but blobing them is easy. As a result the little alliance join big alliances and you get the current static 0.0 with large alliance not really doing much of anything waiting for the next huge fight.

Quote:


,Thirdly theres this notion that a small entity should be able to affect sov of a larger one with small roaming gangs. This is often presented in the same context as the second idea but they're mutually incompatible. I often hear people say that timers aren't fair because they allow a large defense fleet to form. Well duh. If you could do significant damage to a large alliance's sov with a 30 man fleet, that same large alliance could do the same to 30 small alliances. This is why timers exist, to give people a chance to defend things. Having permenant damage which can be done by small groups in less time than it takes a defensive fleet to form just ****s small alliances. You can't have both 2 and 3.

Timers are great and well thought out for a number of reasons, that said taking a lfeet and mauaraunding through another alliances space on the warpath should have some effect, especially if uncontested. Something to encouragean ad hoc fleet right then to defend from 30 battle cruisers.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.15 12:09:00 - [15]
 



My line of thought is about considering the small independent entities the most important source of small fleet warfare.


In my opinion, from a "save the small independent entities" standpoint, NPC 0.0 is very good, because a small group of motivated people can actually survive there against a much larger opponent. Survive, I said, not Win, while keeping the endeavour convenient (by an economical or fun factor standpoint).

And that's pretty much the point.

In NPC 0.0, there are different layers of "effective sovereignty". Big entities will get the best systems, even some good moons; small entities will farm and trade, you can move in when you want and leave without lose anything. NPC nullsec is far more dynamical than the average conquerable space, because there are many small facilitations and warranties that are crucial for small independent entities.

Why crucial? Because everyone can refit their ship, produce things, set clones, repair and trade.

Wouldn't it be good to have a similar but more restrictive and effort requiring mechanism in conquerable space?
To get basic facilities, you can set up a POS in hostile conquerable space, but you can't actually defend it with a small fleet.
That's the point, again.

There are no mechanics that make it possible to a small independent entity to keep their logistics going on, let them replace their ships, refit, refine, produce in a situation of strategical disadvantage.
The problem for small independent entities is not that they can't harm anyone, it's just that they lack the tools to survive.

In other words, you should not need POSes and Outposts to survive in nullsec. They should be a plus, something that the big boys will want. But small independent entities conducting a guerrilla style gameplay should be able to run their logistics/storage/production anyway.

The key thing we need to allow this gameplay in conquerable space, are facilities that have the following characteristics:

  • hard to find
  • easy to destroy
  • cheap to replace.
  • No RF timers, or at least not known by the powerful attacker





Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.15 12:44:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: E man Industries

They do happen as they are fun but there is little reason for them and they often surve no great purpose towards larger wars. They are also not very common and are at risk of being blobed by a large more mobile force. Small fleets should be common and able to work towards sov objective or achieve some effect vs another alliance. Not saying they shoudl take space because that would be dumb.



Fun is a pretty good reason in of itself. And I would suggest that when you take a small force to attack a large, organised entity on their home turf that a larger, more mobile force is a reasonable thing to expect.

Originally by: E man Industries
No issue here. Bigger group gets more and better space. It would be nice if it was easier to hold and defend a small amount of sov. from the larger sov holding forces. The current structure of 0.0 rewards mega alliances rather than smaller entities with smaller pacts of non agression. the result is super blobs and mega alliances as they can not be defended against. A small alliance wanting only 2-3 systems with 100 or so pilots can not defend them selves from the larger alliances. The larger alliance does not need the system but blobing them is easy. As a result the little alliance join big alliances and you get the current static 0.0 with large alliance not really doing much of anything waiting for the next huge fight.



Why should this smaller entity have a magical ability to defend itself against a larger one? Where do you draw the line between small entity who gets game mechanics to defend their space and large one who doesn't? There are reasons to remove an alliance from its space that have nothing to do with needing the resources. Some of these come down to limitations in the region system itself (markets etc.). Some of them are because its less secure when you have neutrals basing out of space right next door to you. If a small alliance sets up shop next to a large one and starts attacking it, why should the large one not wipe it out? If it sets up and starts diplomatic relations then it might do a lot better.

Originally by: E man Industries

Timers are great and well thought out for a number of reasons, that said taking a lfeet and mauaraunding through another alliances space on the warpath should have some effect, especially if uncontested. Something to encouragean ad hoc fleet right then to defend from 30 battle cruisers.


Again, its impossible to design objectives for small groups that can't be done much faster or many times in parallel by larger groups. If you can knock out system upgrades in a system in 10 minutes with a 30 man BC gang, a large alliance can knock out all the system upgrades of your 2-system alliance every hour of every day until you leave and do it all in their spare time.

There are two types of gang that go roaming through alliance space, those who are looking for a fight and those who want cheap ganks, and in my experience most people who claim to want the former are lying. If you desperately wanted a fight you could start attacking the infrastructure as it is today but its a fight you'd probably lose. And therein lies the hidden subtext of this "30 man BC fleets should be able to damage sov" stance. People want to be able to do significant damage and get out before they provoke a response they can't beat 100% of the time.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.15 14:50:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Yeep

[...]

Why should this smaller entity have a magical ability to defend itself against a larger one? Where do you draw the line between small entity who gets game mechanics to defend their space and large one who doesn't?




There are some points here that I would like to contest.

First, you assume that a big force should always be able to eradicate a much smaller force. This is an assumption that cannot be motivated, and is generally false.

In RL, you can fight a strategically superior enemy through guerrilla warfare. You can even have rest, training camps and logistical bases deeply into hostile territory. You can smuggle.
If a gameplay like this were possible, EVE would become richer. To be more clear, I don't think that small alliances should be able to hold sov against bigger forces: Sovereignty and POSes are for the big entities, with a lot of blues etc; we need some other things for the small entities.


Second, about this

Originally by: Yeep

Again, its impossible to design objectives for small groups that can't be done much faster or many times in parallel by larger groups.



Just a consideration: this does not mean that a large group should be able to eradicate all the structures of a smaller entity at once. In my opinion, a small force should be able to keep its logistics going on without even possibly fighting (but at a cost in terms of effort and money, that is "replace what has been destroyed").

Second, a big group splitting and killing many things in parallel is good.

Third, bigger groups need a lot of work to be put together. If you can attack a target only in a 10 minutes time window without notice, you won't be able to build a large group.

Example: if a reinforcement timer weren't visible to others than the structure owners, the attackers would not be able to organise unless they have spies. And the probability of having at least a spy gets higher the bigger is your side, so relatively small groups would be advanaged by this more than bigger ones.

In short, there are tasks that are accomplished faster and better with a small number of people; these usually require either bluff or a good reaction time. Of course, I'm not talking about pos/sov bashing.

Mezzaluna Larentalia
Big Shadows
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2011.05.19 12:57:00 - [18]
 

Personally I think they should put accel.gates for sov warfare to control which shiptypes or how many ships can enter battlefield, as in the tournaments. Would control lag and make more fun pvp. Great sov holders would be the most skilled pilots or those who throw most isk in the fights.

Wolodymyr
Posted - 2011.05.20 20:54:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Camios
from a "save the small independent entities" standpoint, NPC 0.0 is very good, because a small group of motivated people can actually survive there against a much larger opponent. Survive, I said, not Win, while keeping the endeavour convenient (by an economical or fun factor standpoint).

And that's pretty much the point.

In NPC 0.0, there are different layers of "effective sovereignty". Big entities will get the best systems, even some good moons; small entities will farm and trade, you can move in when you want and leave without lose anything. NPC nullsec is far more dynamical than the average conquerable space, because there are many small facilitations and warranties that are crucial for small independent entities.


This is a really good point. More NPC null = More small nullsec alliances.

Voith
Posted - 2011.05.22 19:27:00 - [20]
 

"Small gang warfare" continues to be the most asinine buzzwords and dog-whistle in Eve.

"Small Gang Warfare" always means "Let my 'blob' of 5-10 friends kill solos with out having to worry about someone else 'blobbing' us with 5x-10x our numbers".

Your request is both poorly thought out and flat out "bad" idea.

Go play WoW and run arenas so you can have a nice neat rating that tells you how big your ***** is. That is what you want. Stop telling yourself you want a sandbox game, because you clearly don't.


Halycon Gamma
Caldari
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.30 00:58:00 - [21]
 

Personally... all I want out of it is the ability to raid their inferstructure for resources and isk. I don't want to take their POS's down or effect sov in any reasonable way. I don't want to remove their JB networks.

All I want is to be able to siphon off some of their money. I want to ninja raid into a large alliance's territory with black ops ships and covert haulers, shoot something, load something into the hauler, and try to get out before they respond.

I don't care if mechanics don't allow me to plunder whatever the structure is whole sale and take everything. I don't care if I can't plunder the thing more than once a week because of some sort of timer. Nor do I care if I can only take a small part of a much larger whole.

I want a clear cut definable objective for an OP. "Today we're going to go hit this moon, steal some of the stuff in its hopper, and get out.". Or something. Moon, some new mechanic, whatever.

Just raid the large power blocks and annoy them. Gnat stings, cost them a few billion a month in resources lost, and have some fun in the process.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.05.31 15:14:00 - [22]
 

Voith:
No one is advocating that all fights are small.
Gate camping by a small gang is the problem, not the goal. What can a small gang of 5-20 do? Gate camp. That is it, gate camping can harass another alliance but is not often a well defined goal and most gangs are looking for good fights. Currently these small gangs do not have any other attainable objectives than harassment and picking of solo or pairs of stragglers. They do so until bored because there foes stop using the system(itel is onto your gank or a much larger blob appears and run away. This is not ideal for either party and not sustainably fun.

Now imagine something better.

Say for a station a small gang could achieve some tangible goal in system. The gang would form up go out and go towards there objective. The defending side would be forced into action or risk losing “X”. This would prompt defense fleets to actually form up and defend on short notice and maybe not reach blob size.

You have no created an objective for small gangs, encouraged small gangs for offence and defense and improved sov warfare and made parts of it more fun than grab 1000 ships and lag fight each other and tally the tab to see who won.

Or maybe a module that acts as a cyno jammer that is deployable in system(would show like a cyno become so no hiding) The small gang can now go about there objective and a defense fleet would have to take out the cyno jammer before hot dropping the smaller gang.

There are a lot of options, many better than my terrible idea’s. The goal however is simple. Make small gangs fun.

How it is done is not as simple. You are right that we have to worry about small gangs having to much effect. We also need to ensure the mechanics of such can not be abused and cause inordinate effects to the effort involved. This is why I would like to see more discussion on this topic so we can provide the CSM and CCP with clearly defined goals and objectives.

Halycon:

That is exactly what I would like to see.
I especially enjoy the bit about a clear defined objective.

For the CSM maybe a clear concise statement of what we want would be of more benefit. Judging from the thread to many people believe small gangs just want to gank with impunity.


Statement:
Small gang warfare in 0.0 is lacking requires more small scale objectives to foster this style of game play. Small gang 0.0 warfare should promote the following:
Encourage small gangs to form up,
give small gangs rewarding objectives,
Enable small gangs prompt a response from other alliances.
encourage gang on gang warfare.

Additions or qualifications to the above goals?


I suck at writing these things so looking for some help.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.05.31 16:20:00 - [23]
 


I had a corp mate that had an interesting idea:

Player Controlled Incursions...

The gist is, small gangs can deploy a device in a system that will cause incursion effects for x hours/days if the residents don't put a stop to it.

This forces the residents to actually defend their territory rather than Safe up until the gang passes through. And if they don't, they have to deal with poorer bounties, etc, etc...
Player Controlled Incursions

GavinCapacitor
Posted - 2011.06.01 20:38:00 - [24]
 

"give small gangs rewarding objectives":
There is nothing a small group of people can do that a larger group of people can't do better/faster in eve. Your 30 man gang can not and should not be able to beat a similarly equipped 50 person group.

This will hold true for any goal or objective that does not have an arbitrary cap on the number of people involved.

"encourage gang on gang warfare":
Similarly, if two groups are fighting, they will strive to bring more ships and reduce losses, this will only break down if there is some sort of arbitrary X number vs. X number mechanic. If this sounds familiar you probably play wow with instanced PvP with X amount of people on each team.

"enable small gangs promote[sic] a response from other alliances"
They can and do. Most commonly "form up, lets go kill them to get them out of our space" or "get safe and don't die". I'm not sure what other kind of 'response' you had in mind?

Conclusion:
This is how eve, much akin to reality, works.
Entire form is babies.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.06.01 21:59:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: GavinCapacitor
"give small gangs rewarding objectives":
There is nothing a small group of people can do that a larger group of people can't do better/faster in eve. Your 30 man gang can not and should not be able to beat a similarly equipped 50 person group.

This will hold true for any goal or objective that does not have an arbitrary cap on the number of people involved.

"encourage gang on gang warfare":
Similarly, if two groups are fighting, they will strive to bring more ships and reduce losses, this will only break down if there is some sort of arbitrary X number vs. X number mechanic. If this sounds familiar you probably play wow with instanced PvP with X amount of people on each team.

Quote:

No, a small gang should not beat a larger better equipped better led fleet. No one is advocating that. No one wants some system that only 50 ships on a gate at a time. That would be ******ed and you would be justified in saying go play wow.

Giving small gangs a rewarding objective simply encourages and gives players something to do besides blob. Expanding the role of small gangs past gate camps and PvE would be huge.

Right now what PvP objective can a small gang of 30 players go out and achieve besides a gate camp? What if they could achieve some alliance goals and maybe even earn some isk from PvP actions.

You would see more small gangs out in 0.0 and fights between them would be good.

The difficult part is how to encourage small gang warfare with out making it a case of a big blob would just do it faster. Would having smaller in space modules that are attackable by small gangs but not worth a larger fleet time work? Or would some other mechanic be best? Lots of options and defining what small gang players wants helps us move towards a better solution.


"enable small gangs promote[sic] a response from other alliances"
They can and do. Most commonly "form up, lets go kill them to get them out of our space" or "get safe and don't die". I'm not sure what other kind of 'response' you had in mind?

Conclusion:
This is how eve, much akin to reality, works.
Entire form is babies.


“Get safe and don’t die” or do not go to AB-123 it’s camped” is not the desired response. “The lets go kill em” is what people are after. If the defense fleet is larger….good it’s an effective defense fleet. There is a chance for kills on both sides. Note that a defense fleet is not always the main alliance fleet.


 

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