open All Channels
seplocked Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions
blankseplocked Does anyone see a problem the way Eve is headed?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (10)

Author Topic

McFly
Caldari
Peanut Factory
Good Sax
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:36:00 - [121]
 

I'm of the opinion that there are some valid points in the thread. One I would like to comment on is that small alliances are pretty much forced into one of the powerbloc napfests or the other if they want to live in 0.0 (discounting NPC 0.0 Regions)

Over the last few months I've been looking at a region, that's relatively quiet. But held back on the idea of planting towers and take a small group of deadend systems due to the main problem in eve imho. If a small alliance did so, the day we popped up on the Sov Map, we'd wake up to 50 dreads and 4 titans sitting on our towers.

So I do think something does need to be changed, I can't give a one size fits all change for it. But I do think that people have a valid point with Jump Bridges moving logistics into an easy road. Sure it makes LO more profitable, but pipe traffic is pretty much 75% covops, and ceptors. Anything larger is running along a JB Network or a cloaking ratting raven.

On the cloaking, I've been a long time advocate for the cloak being a great tool in destroying morale of an enemy. But the no worries cloaked raven farmer is getting on my nerves. The upcoming change to local I think will handle that issue tho.

On the broader scheme of things the current political polarisation isn't anything new, the difference is that before there were a lot of areas that weren't effected. Now it seems that everyone is involved. Hell people are fighting over Geminate which myself being a former member of r0adKill can point out is one of the worst regions in Eve. Terrible Moons, so-so ratting, only good mining is ice, crokite and mercoxit.

But anyway just my .02 isk on it.

Brmble
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:37:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Kirana Si
The biggest problem is that little effort that is needed to keep Sov. running.
Have a dedicated person per corp with a JF and you are done.
Look @ ***** ( won`t name here any alliance because every1 here taking internet spaceships too serious ) 3 month ago, a core of 100 actives could maintain all the spread out systems they hold Sov. in.
When I joined the game and had to get my stuff 40-50 jumps into 0.0 it was a huge hazzle and was a 2-3 hour trip when you were lucky, now its a 10min trip via jumpbridges, thats just plain wrong.


actually it owns I only have so much time to play and am not teh hardcorez so it owns ok?!?!

The Mittani
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:37:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Wesley Baird
Originally by: The Mittani

the core assumption of the topic has been debunked (4 powerblocs in 2006, 4 powerblocs in 2008)



I disagree as all four you indicated are in fact aligned down the middle...meaning we have a GBC side of things and a Goons/NC side of things.

I suspect that relatively soon there could very well be one aligned side with the other broken. I hope this is not the case, but I cannot see how the GBC side of things can withstand the combined power of Goons/NC powerbloc. NC alone can field 200+ dreads, combine that with the large capital fleet of the Goons and Drone regions and you have a capital fleet that is unstoppable.

I don't want to derail this thread, as the discussion for the most part has been excellent! I hope CCP is reading!



the biggest issue regarding the extended lifespan of a powerbloc revolves around how well set up their 'core space' is in terms of sov4 and outposts

you'll find that the core areas of the primary blocs have layered sov4 and serious investment in infrastructure

due to the way cyno jammers and sov4 works, the major blocs mostly scuffle in the outlying border areas. the combination of sov4, jammers and doomsdays/remote ecm gives heavy advantages to a defender

therefore, regions people don't care about that much get traded and fought over extensively, but the core territories of the blocs don't change much because they're a proverbial brick wall: delve is a fortress, ten/det is likewise, and I'm sure that the same goes for the core RA and RZR territories

Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:48:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Minigin
problem one... invention.

cheep t2 items are the worst thing that happend to this game. we have total morons flying around in ships with maxed capabilities and being able to replace them in a heartbeat.
i am of the opinion that if you cant keep your ship alive you should have some real dificulty replacing it.

problem two... rigs and t1 insurance.
no real risk flying a fleet bs. rigs prodomenantly used for extra tanking with no real adverse side effects.


{SNIP}



basically, I would disagree. Before, we would see fleets of lolfit t1 ships flown by players with little pride on the battlefield. Now at least they have a semi-decent fit, even if you still get t2 fitted sniper BS's trying to snip a intercepter that is orbiting them etc. Lower cost means people are willing to bring less crap to the battlefield, which is a good thing.

As for rigs/ships etc, the issue is that there is no real loss in pvp. Insurance means that losses do not really matter, in the same way the old t1 lolfit ships could fight forever without caring aboout loss. Once you add in serious losses, then people logoff/dock or hide like they did back in the Delve war, so its not a easy issue to solve. The real answer is how do you force people to fight and also fight with pride in their fitout?

Han Lector
Amarr
Griefer-B-Gone
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2008.12.08 18:58:00 - [125]
 

Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.

The Mittani
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:02:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Han Lector
Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.


diplomacy is part of the game, cope

we do

Han Lector
Amarr
Griefer-B-Gone
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:09:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Han Lector on 08/12/2008 19:11:22
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Han Lector
Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.


diplomacy is part of the game, cope

we do


Sure, keep your diplomacy but pay the fee. That would prevent one entity from having 80% of 0.0 alliances set blue and playing EVE on easy mode.

Blazde
Minmatar
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:11:00 - [128]
 

Just don't agree with the OP's points:


"Eve is polarising" - As Mittani pointed out we've had approximately four superpowers/powerblocks for a while now. Going further back, in 2005 you had something like BoB, G, LV, ASCN. Somewhere in 2004 it was FA, SA, CA, PA. There's always minor alliances, upcoming superpowers, remnants of old superpowers and always complex relationships between the major players that usually means they're not all hostile to each, but those who work together do it to a limited extent that means they're essentially seperate entities. In 2004 a lot of the galaxy was anti-CA or pro-CA, but after CA imploded EVE politics was shaken to the core and all bets were well and truly off. I suspect a similar thing would happen if BoB left the scene. (And it's not as if BoB mind being the focus of so much hate, it's a situation they willingly created).

The number of players in EVE has grown, and the intensity of combat increased so it is more blobby but the basic structure of EVE politics isn't so different. Why? Partly the geography seems to support 'about 4 territorial areas', usually a northern one, a couple in the south and something in the west (if people ever talk about a 5th nowadays it's drone regions). Partly players need a few different cultures to choose from.

Partly the highly ambitous leader type players who have most control over the politics seek a challenge and thus have no interest in seeing EVE stagnate and will tend to let natural tensions divide former allies when there's a lack of enemies to focus on, or conversely supress tensions and seek out other entities with common goals to band with when backed into a corner and overwhelmed. If the rest of EVE besides the NC quit tomorrow we'd fracture in no time. If the rest of EVE besides the GBC quit tomorrow the 'pets' would mostly turn on BoB and the more dissafected, independant BoB corps like DICE might even break off and seek their own glory.

Partly it may be a matter of perception. People counting powerblocks get to about four before their brain collapses because the number of interactions between entities get's too large to keep track of and everything else needs to be categorized with the first four (or else in some other generic don't-care category). Crucially that perception of the political landscape is reflexive to an extent (and imo strongly so) with the actual political landscape and so self-fullfills, although reality always remains more complex than people think.

Interestingly Empire has about four powerblocks too.

Blazde
Minmatar
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:11:00 - [129]
 


"Eve is stagnating" - We've just seen a whole series of record breaking capital bloodbaths in/around Tribute, collosal numbers of subcapital casulties and massive turmoil in the north. Now new shockwaves are rocking southern geopolitics. I don't think ther's anything to worry about yet.


"Small independant entities are locked out of 0.0" - True in the past but I actually think the situation is improving. During the past year the bar has been raised in terms of what entities can survive in 0.0, we've seen alot of alliances with weak organisation or poor military cleared or destroyed and the space freed up. The next alliances to come under pressure are those which are competent but have too much territory. BoB have 'done the territory thing' and are now sticking with their core regions. Goons are consolidating. RA, IRON, PURE all learnt that having territories far apart wasn't sustainable. The NC in general has never been very territory hungry and is aware now more than ever of it's own limits. Major alliances will always seek to influence which entities live on their borders. But that doesn't mean those entities must swear total allegiance to their bigger neighbours, it just means they have to be a bit careful to keep a low profile. Independance comes in many shades of grey anyway, and many leaders recogise having partially hostile borders is healthy. To give only one example there's a whole arc of the map from Fountain through to Cloud Ring and bits of Pure Blind/Fade that's remained to a greater or lesser extent outside direct control of the powerblocks for most of the last year and has it's own interesting politics. What people usually bemoan is that small ****y zero-politics entities who enter 0.0 then make a point of ****ing off as many large nearby alliances as possible get run out fast. I don't see a problem with that, EVE is a game of politics, of diplomacy and of cooperation at all scales. (And succesful cooperation is extremely hard so it's not as if people using it are getting an easy ride.)

Most of all EVE is just realistic compared to real-world conflicts, because it's player/human driven and there's very few constraints. Anyone who doesn't like how cut throat it is is really just saying 'humans are power hungry bastards'. There's plenty of other games that will give you a different reality but I like my EVE to be 'human'. Among other things it's educational.


"The defender has the advantage" - This is precisely one of the very most important things that stops EVE stagnating.


There are a lot of genuine concerns in this thread about how other aspects of EVE besides the 0.0 endgame fit in to the overall picture and for sure some tweaks are needed but EVE politics is not about to hit a bick wall and nor is it even any closer to the brick wall than it was 4 years ago.

Janu Hull
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:16:00 - [130]
 

Edited by: Janu Hull on 08/12/2008 19:21:10
Edited by: Janu Hull on 08/12/2008 19:20:39
Originally by: Han Lector
Edited by: Han Lector on 08/12/2008 19:11:22
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Han Lector
Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.


diplomacy is part of the game, cope

we do


Sure, keep your diplomacy but pay the fee. That would prevent one entity from having 80% of 0.0 alliances set blue and playing EVE on easy mode.


Ok, now we've expended the intelligent thoughts on the subject, and out come the kneejerks from the mouth breathers.

Riddle me this, Batman, how would you get around alliances without standings simply metagaming friend's lists of "no fire" targets? You'd get a backdoor NRDS system replacing NBSI.

NAPs wouldn't change an iota because of a petty mechanical alteration like that...

I mean, really, you've completely ignored the reality of the situation, there's no mechanic in the game that absolutely forces you to fire on a non-blue target, and its not like you can't shoot blues if the situation warrants.

The standings system only has meaning BECAUSE WE GIVE IT MEANING... You can remove all standings from the game, and I'm pretty sure the power blocs would proceed forward pretty much unabated because they're missing the little colored tab on the portrait. I'm reasonably sure most people intelligent enough to succeed in 0.0 have their F1-F8 reflex triggered by slightly higher brain function than color recognition.

Wesley Baird
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:24:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Blazde
There are a lot of genuine concerns in this thread about how other aspects of EVE besides the 0.0 endgame fit in to the overall picture and for sure some tweaks are needed but EVE politics is not about to hit a bick wall and nor is it even any closer to the brick wall than it was 4 years ago.



I think you bring up alot of fair points, and I would agree with alot of what you said. However the game changes such as Jump Bridges, and the proliferation of capitals has changed the end game from what is was 4 years ago.

There is a massive concentration of power going on, which given the technical changes to the game are different than the past. I would argue that the major powers in Eve are able to project their power in a way which they have never been able to before. Which in some senses must be very satisfying to those involved.

The Chinese server is ruled by one major powerbloc, is it really that far from reality to assume the same wont happen to TQ? If so, is that a bad thing?

Idaeus
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:25:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Janu Hull
... shoot blues ...


I knew there was a reason to like the ED guys.

Toffles
Caldari
Pod'em All
Not Found.
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:32:00 - [133]
 

Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.

Powerblocs

Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.

Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map

This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations!Shocked Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.

A couple things that could fix this:

A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.

B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.

Ganking

Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.

high end moons

I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.

Janu Hull
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:33:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Wesley Baird
Originally by: Blazde
There are a lot of genuine concerns in this thread about how other aspects of EVE besides the 0.0 endgame fit in to the overall picture and for sure some tweaks are needed but EVE politics is not about to hit a bick wall and nor is it even any closer to the brick wall than it was 4 years ago.



I think you bring up alot of fair points, and I would agree with alot of what you said. However the game changes such as Jump Bridges, and the proliferation of capitals has changed the end game from what is was 4 years ago.

There is a massive concentration of power going on, which given the technical changes to the game are different than the past. I would argue that the major powers in Eve are able to project their power in a way which they have never been able to before. Which in some senses must be very satisfying to those involved.

The Chinese server is ruled by one major powerbloc, is it really that far from reality to assume the same wont happen to TQ? If so, is that a bad thing?



I think population might have a lot of impact. TQ's overall population dwarfs the Chinese server, so a reasonably large alliance relative to the population of the server at large is easier to manage than here.

Even if one of the big players vanished tomorrow, you might hear a bit of a sucking sound as the existing powers expanded to fill the vaccuum, but if the last big war was any indicator, the current mechanics on TQ indicate that three or four regions is about the upper limit of what a 2000 man alliance can effectively maintain before their flank is too exposed to others who might want a title shot. I really believe that TQ powers offer each other too much competition, even if its often token, to really allow a steamroll over the entire server.

MirrorGod
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:44:00 - [135]
 

MOFUKEN signed. Nothing good about these naptrains at all.

Han Lector
Amarr
Griefer-B-Gone
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:45:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Janu Hull
Edited by: Janu Hull on 08/12/2008 19:21:10
Edited by: Janu Hull on 08/12/2008 19:20:39
Originally by: Han Lector
Edited by: Han Lector on 08/12/2008 19:11:22
Originally by: The Mittani
Originally by: Han Lector
Blue standings should cost ISK, like empire war does. You can set a corp or alliance blue, but you will have to pay fee for each pilot in that corp/alliance. That would make blue standings temporary and it would prevent NAPfests.


diplomacy is part of the game, cope

we do


Sure, keep your diplomacy but pay the fee. That would prevent one entity from having 80% of 0.0 alliances set blue and playing EVE on easy mode.


Ok, now we've expended the intelligent thoughts on the subject, and out come the kneejerks from the mouth breathers.

Riddle me this, Batman, how would you get around alliances without standings simply metagaming friend's lists of "no fire" targets? You'd get a backdoor NRDS system replacing NBSI.

NAPs wouldn't change an iota because of a petty mechanical alteration like that...

I mean, really, you've completely ignored the reality of the situation, there's no mechanic in the game that absolutely forces you to fire on a non-blue target, and its not like you can't shoot blues if the situation warrants.

The standings system only has meaning BECAUSE WE GIVE IT MEANING... You can remove all standings from the game, and I'm pretty sure the power blocs would proceed forward pretty much unabated because they're missing the little colored tab on the portrait. I'm reasonably sure most people intelligent enough to succeed in 0.0 have their F1-F8 reflex triggered by slightly higher brain function than color recognition.


It's simple, there should be a RED fee, same as BLUE. Then you keep everyone neutral, unless you really have to.

Bluebear8
Gallente
DOUBLE IDENTITY
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:51:00 - [137]
 

It's well known that large businesses are extremely efficient at depleting natural resources. It's called MONOPOLIES.

Two solutions to dyspro moons are obvious:

1) Eliminate all dyspro moons; or

2) Cause any dyspro moon controlled by a Major Alliance to automatically become DEPLETED within 30 days (in recogition of the Major Alliance's superior ability to deplete resources by strip mining it to oblivion). Respawn them elsewhere to encourage migration, if you must have dyspro moons.
Define Major Alliance to prevent Monopolies, and encourage smaller businesses. (Major Alliance might include any 800+ member alliance PLUS any Small Alliance who is blue to any 2,000+ member alliance. Etc.)

Use this to encourage smaller groups to go out, explore, and claim space again. By this I mean encourage them to go out and claim space for themselves, and not just live in 0.0 as proxies or pets of some big blue "friend".

Please discuss. It is intended as a constructive suggestion.

[NOTE TO Mega Alliance DYSPRO OWNERS: No one cares about your dyspro moon(s), except your alts who scream against this idea.]

Right now, the sentiment (echoed above) seems to be we are supposedly "encouraged" to form up a new group, move it out to 0.0, and die for purpose of giving the mega-alliances some fun fights. IF you don't enjoy growing a group to go out and die in 0.0, then you should just stay in Empire or NPC space (or join a larger group)!

New ventures, new friends, and small roaming gangs used to be a lot more fun. I'd venture to guess a lot of people already realized an old truism -

"If you can't beat them, join them."


And, the big ones keep on getting bigger.

So, I say pass some dyspro moons to new groups. DOWN with MONOPOLIES.
Encourage some diversity and try to level the playing field.

BTW, the guys who scanned out the dyspro moons do deserve propellers, but I can't find a good link to propellers right now. If they will deplete and respawn, there will be more awards for finding them! Maybe a certificate/award for the discovery or something? Smile

Ria Sotori
Caldari
Poor Old Ornery nOObs
Turdz Asshatz N Grieferz
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:52:00 - [138]
 

If CCP really wanted to make sov more interesting, meaningful and realistic they could simply remove the POS aspect to sov all together and switch to outposts.

- Add deployable defensive structures to outposts
- Remove the restrictions on number of outposts per system in null sec (talk about an isk sink)
Make the number of outposts affect sov level instead of number of POS
- allow moonmining etc. to be conducted from an outpost as the ultimate level of industry but leave it as able to be performed at a POS as well.
- You have an outpost in the system... guess what you have to fuel its defenses... you also have to fuel its industry power as well.
- Also remove the get out of jail card free we have now with stront timers. I mean how silly can you get ? I blow down the shields/defenses of a installation I should then be able to press forward my attack and "take" the thing not have to wait X number of hours for the other side to call in there buddies to come defend it.... jeeez hows that realistic ? Wheres the stealth and secret planning and ambush aspects ?

You add those features to the game I guarantee powerblocs vanish and alliances cull there holdings down to manageable sizes they can defend 24x7.

And while your at it change all NPC 0.0 Outposts to conquerable as well... 0.0 is not a safe place so having safe harbors in it is silly.


MirrorGod
Amarr
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.12.08 19:55:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Toffles
Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.

Powerblocs

Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.

Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map

This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations!Shocked Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.

A couple things that could fix this:

A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.

B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.

Ganking

Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.

high end moons

I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.


Hugely approving of this. The other idea I have is pillagable moon mining:

Instead of a mod sucking a stream of moon minerals safely inside the tower, I'd like to see an NPC type industrial shoot outside teh shield to the moons surface. Said industrial should be probable so it could be popped/stolen from. It should be able to return more often (making it safer for the POS owner but then it spends less time harvesting, meaning a safer moon mining operation is less profitable.) Or to stay on the moon for weeks but be vunerable to raiding.

My two isk

Heath Ledger
Caldari
54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:01:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: MirrorGod
Originally by: Toffles
Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.

I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.


Hugely approving of this. The other idea I have is pillagable moon mining:

Instead of a mod sucking a stream of moon minerals safely inside the tower, I'd like to see an NPC type industrial shoot outside teh shield to the moons surface. Said industrial should be probable so it could be popped/stolen from. It should be able to return more often (making it safer for the POS owner but then it spends less time harvesting, meaning a safer moon mining operation is less profitable.) Or to stay on the moon for weeks but be vunerable to raiding.

My two isk


Along those lines, why not just roll moon mining into an industry supercapital?

You would have said vessel parked next to a dyspro moon, plugging away at it, but extremely vulnerable. Major alliances would have to always have their eyes on these ships, and it would be much easier for an enemy to disrupt supply chains.

Alternatively, you would be adding a layer of strategy by creating a situation where an enemy force could strike your isk fountain at multiple places across several regions.

Anyway, lots of good ideas across this thread. Keep em coming guys.

Presidio
Minmatar
Phantom Squad
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:05:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Presidio on 08/12/2008 20:11:08
WTS Big picture.

Eve is a sandbox. The current state of 0.0 endgame is completelly due to the player base in 0.0. A power block "A" decides to indiscriminately recruit any PvP corp they can. Then vows via New York Times article to control the entire 0.0 space. The power blocks start forming. The power block "A" goes on a pet recruiting spree, all becomes one huge bi polarized cluster****. CCP profits.

Wesley Baird
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:16:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: Toffles
Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.

Powerblocs

Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.

Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map

This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations!Shocked Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.

A couple things that could fix this:

A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.

B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.

Ganking

Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.

high end moons

I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.


Awesome post! In particular the POS suggestions.

Janu Hull
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:26:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Han Lector
It's simple, there should be a RED fee, same as BLUE. Then you keep everyone neutral, unless you really have to.


I know this is a little difficult for you, but try to imagine this...neutrals... you know, those people without standings? They aren't all the same corp. They have different corps all on their own. Now bear with me, this is the hard part...you don't have to shoot them all! Shocked

Yes, I know, this must be quite the surprise, but there's nothing written that says "If not blue, then shoot". Its not an enforced mechanic. You won't be CONCORDOKKEN'D for letting them go without firing. See, you don't have to set standings not to shoot something! Just like you don't have to set standings TO shoot something.

Those blue and red tags aren't needed. You can look at the overview, see the corp/alliance tag and base your targeting impulse on who it is exactly is in front of you. Better yet, if this requires too much brain power, just listen to the nice FC, he'll tell you exactly who it is you should be shooting, and this should relieve you some of the pressure of having to actually process all that heavy information.

Could someone please volunteer an alt in a pod he can kill? I want to try positive reinforcement if he actually gets what I'm saying, and I need a reward...

Orange Faeces
Minmatar
The Atomik Izlamiks
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:27:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Han Lector
It's simple, there should be a RED fee, same as BLUE. Then you keep everyone neutral, unless you really have to.


wow

Draahk Chimera
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:45:00 - [145]
 

"Well I for one think that Draahk Chimera dude's suggestion was good."

Orree
Gallente
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:46:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Malachon Draco

You're certainly right that making a big coalition work together is a lot harder than just gathering one. And while I don't appreciate your tendency to go for huge blobs and avoid other fights, for the coordination you achieved during the Tribute fights with BoB I think you certainly deserve respect. On the other hand, once you gather 100-200 caps and a sizeable supportfleet for every big operation, do you really still need a lot of coordination?


Right at the moment in time, no...but it depends upon who you're fighting. Prolly better be on your toes if its BoB, no? That doesn't change the fact that its a gargantuan amount of effort to keep a coalition running fairly smoothly.

Don't over-generalize. We engage in all kinds of warfare on any given day and our methods of conducting our business are not in their most basic of purposes to "avoid other fights."

I think what I find most disingenuous about these "blob" conversations is how the NC is always the one everyone ridicules. We aren't the inventors of the blob. We aren't the only perpatrators or even necessarily the worst perpetrators. The entities in the "NC" have been cooperating with each other for years. It's not simply about mutual safety to carebear it up (because that's all we know how to do). It's serious, deep-rooted alliance and friendship.

Part of the reason the larger cap blobs get pulled together by various entities is because you never really know who all you're going to be fighting. Many entities fall all over themselves to get involved in cap fights via temp blue standings--- fights that they ordinarily wouldn't bother getting involved in if it didn't mean get in on the almighty "cap kill."

I've said all along I hate what POS and capitals, especially titans have done to this game. I think titans are a lot less ridiculous than they used to be (remote DDs, DD then jump-out), but their proliferation is making them ridiculous for different reasons now.

Many aspects of the game have simply become "work." RAWR recognized a long time ago that for us to be as sucessful as we could be at defending our space, we needed to keep "our space" to one region under current game mechanics. This is part of why the NC was successful at holding the GBC at bay for around 3 months or so in Tribute.

Another major reason create fairly large power blocs is because the stakes are so high. Most of the larger, traditional, space-holding alliances have so much tied up in the holding of their regions...even poor regions like Tribute, that losing the region is an enormous setback. Get enough like-minded people together and you have an increased level of security, but by no means is anyone invulnerable. It's always just a matter of time, willpower and timezones. To the extent the defender is less organized than say we were in Tribute, it takes less time and there is increased chance for success by the attackers as we saw during the earlier part of the MAX campaign.

Incidentally, I'm not one of those that feels the NC trounced the GBC in "MAX." We lost a lot during the first part. Alliances died and lost space. Lots of damage to infrastructure was done.

Once we got our act together and got more practiced flying together, we did much better. Regardless of the bias and spin our detrators want to put on it to make themselves feel better, I'm quite proud of how the NC performed from August through the pullout in early November. I'm sure many people assumed Tribute, would just get rolled in a matter of weeks--- that we couldn't fight and moreover, we wouldn't fight.

Like many, I'd like to see things go to smaller scale engagements that are more regional in scope. CCP can make all the changes they like, but politics and events are player driven in this game. The prime movers have to change their behavior and I don't see any of them doing it unilaterally.


Faekurias
Caldari
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:47:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Toffles
Since I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the issue, here's what I think.

Powerblocs

Not gonna change, alliances will always team up with other alliances for their advantage.

Same old powerblocs, stagnant political map

This is the result of more stations, plentiful pos's, and constellation sov. Feythabolis alone has 15 stations!Shocked Due to the considerable amount of pos shooting involved in each station system it can takes months for one alliance to claim another's space. Often a superior attacker will get so bored of the pos work they give up and defender gets to keep their space. I can think of two situations where this occurred. The first time was when bob invaded us and got pretty far into Tenerifis before they lost critical mass. The second would be the invasion of bob space. By the time we wore bob down to Delve the coalition had completely lost its steam. Those were two occasions where the political map could have shifted drastically as far as power blocs go.

A couple things that could fix this:

A. Tie station sov together. Make it so a fixed number of stations (2-4) per region are designated as key stations. When every key station is captured by the enemy, every station in the region switches to their sov. This needs to be fleshed out but you get the idea.

B. A solid logistics crew armed with pos's, fuel, and capable stront timers will bring even the strongest opponents to their knees. This is stupid. Sov claiming pos's could have a fuel cost penalty. Anything past the first sov claiming pos gets a 20% penalty for fuel costs. 10 sov claiming pos's would cost three times as much in fuel per pos than a single one. Alternatively you could have some other form of penalty such as 10% penalty to tower hp with each additional sov claiming pos.

Ganking

Jump bridges are fine as they are. For the alliances that get to use them they are fantastic because they eliminate those 60+ jump trips through completely empty space and make eve feel less boring in general. I think the complaints of smaller corps/pirates/whatever are valid though. A solution would be making the jump bridge module use much more cpu and grid so the pos can only fit a handful of guns. This would give small gangs the ability to camp jump bridges while letting the jb owning alliances retain the convenience at the trade off of some risk.

high end moons

I agree that these are dumb. I think all r64 materials should be moved to asteroid belts in the lowest truesec systems (-.8 to -1 maybe) in the farthest from empire regions. Period Basis, Omist, Branch, etc. are more remote and should have better rewards than say Scalding Pass. The type of r64 material should be region specific as well to give regions more variety. Make 0.0 lucrative for the common man again, and not just a place where alliances control vast networks of isk printing machines, backed up by massive capital fleets. As a side benefit, belt and hauler ganking would be much more frequent.


MAN OF THE HOUR

harry beanbag
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
Posted - 2008.12.08 20:56:00 - [148]
 

Shouldnt there be some CSM's up in this thread giving us their ideas. Isnt it kinda their job?

Malachon Draco
Caldari
eXceeded
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:02:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Orree


I think what I find most disingenuous about these "blob" conversations is how the NC is always the one everyone ridicules. We aren't the inventors of the blob. We aren't the only perpatrators or even necessarily the worst perpetrators. The entities in the "NC" have been cooperating with each other for years. It's not simply about mutual safety to carebear it up (because that's all we know how to do). It's serious, deep-rooted alliance and friendship.



I never said NC invented the blob.

I think I was there when it was really 'invented' the first time, during the BoB-ASCN siege of EC- and we started with 600+ in system. And I am not even blaming you for 'blobbing up' in the last few months. With the GBC throwing everything and the kitchen sink at you, what else could you do? But I do lament the fact that this is a kind of nuclear arms race, where everyone either has to 'blob' or get wiped off the face of the map. Its pointless to blame specific entities for the current state of affairs, but does that really mean we have to like the current game mechanics?

Blazde
Minmatar
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:03:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: Wesley Baird
I think you bring up alot of fair points, and I would agree with alot of what you said. However the game changes such as Jump Bridges, and the proliferation of capitals has changed the end game from what is was 4 years ago.

There is a massive concentration of power going on, which given the technical changes to the game are different than the past. I would argue that the major powers in Eve are able to project their power in a way which they have never been able to before. Which in some senses must be very satisfying to those involved.

The Chinese server is ruled by one major powerbloc, is it really that far from reality to assume the same wont happen to TQ? If so, is that a bad thing?



It would be a bad thing, and I was worried a little (probably needlessly) before cyno-jammers were introduced because the defenders advantage had been eroded big time by increasingly large dread fleets.

I'm not really familiar with the Chinese server but my hunch is it'll correct itself in time as their history builds up and adds flavour and more people there get experienced at playing EVE.

There's I guess roughly two ways of dominating EVE. Either you do it by sheer numbers of (decent) players which I don't think is sustainable because people are ambitous to be independant, carve out their own niche and seek challenges. Maybe there is a different culture in China that sees it differently I dunno. BoB did have a partial monopoly on 'skilled powergamers' that was self-reinforcing for a while. They kept attracting the best players that gave up tolerating failure in their previous alliance and wanted to play alongside similar talent. But it didn't last because there were enough corps with underdog spirit who kept on fighting BoB and essentially bred their own in-house 'skilled powergamers' that were 'indoctrinated' anti-BoB for life. If you've come into EVE the Goon route for instance you may leave GS but you're unlikely to go to BoB, ever. Same goes for anyone who's spent a lot of time in the NC alliances. There's plenty of excuses people have for fighting BoB (they backstabbed me sometime, they metagame, they get dev help, etc) but I think most of the actual drive and energy people have comes directly from not wanting them to dominate EVE. There's countless people who will "probably quit EVE if BoB dies" because it's the one thing that drives them.

So there's a powerful natural reaction against domination by a single entity and if some future hegemony threatens to evolve from anti-BoB entities (I don't peronally believe it will) the seeds of the counter-rebellion are surely already sown, perhaps within entities like Tri.

The other way to own EVE is by dominating resources with a small number of people, and that's much more of a possibility now than in the past because resources are more important (for capitals) and are more concentrated (Dyspro). But I still think they're not that important, among other things it is possible to generate decent income in empire. The alliances that control the Dyspro can afford to **** away large numbers of capitals sure. But ****ing away capitals isn't a winning strategy cos you **** away your morale too and that's (still) much more important than ISK.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (10)

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