Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Havohej]

I mean, you don't even have removing jump drives in yours =/

I cba reading 20 forums about one game anymore, so forgive me for not being up to speed on all of the past year's griping discussions about the game from all quarters.

That said, removing jump drives has been seriously suggested, and well-received as something that would be helpful?  I'm not a capital pilot, but I liked the idea behind getting a covops through and suicidally popping a cyno a few dozen AU from the enemy position to survive long enough to put a capital fleet on the field to support the battleship/support fleet that was set to jump into the enemy bubblespam camp.

That's probably not been done in that way in ages, given how much things have changed, but it's sort of a romantic notion I have.  I'd hate to see the jumpdrive entirely gone.

[Lyn Farel]

Would definitely resub intensively if there was a total reset.

Especially with no alts and no jump drives and that shit, with proper convoys and actualy MULTIPLAYER (not doing everything through one player with multiple accounts and alts).

Last time I went through Providence, CVA was still there, still NRDS and still fielding better fleets than Severance (and mustering faster at that), but I got caught in the middle of a CVA vs. PL skirmish and died.  I've seen things recently that suggest they're still an RP entity, but I'd love to hear something from someone in the Amarr bloc who might actually have contact/participation with those folks.

RP-lite at best.  Most of the leadership is most interested in maintaining NRDS, but not a whole lot of RP emphasis.

Well at least they kept true to their NRDS core ideals, which is already something... It's good to see that these ethics still have their staunch supporters.

[V. Gesakaarin]

The greatest reasons I see Eve stagnating is that the power creep over the years has essentially favoured defense over offense. I left null years ago because at the time when they started releasing caps/supers post RMR in addition to iterations on starbases and outposts post-RMR that the trend at the time for mega-coalitions would continue to expand. My reasons at the time were simple, giving structures, caps and supers that much hp would reward defense too much. By that, at a strategic level when defense is "OP" then of course the trend will favour a more static type of warfare.

So yes, I look at null today, and it resembles something more akin to warfare with castles or in the trenches of WWI. That's because system defenses can become so significant that you need equally significant numbers (and especially caps) to break them. This then causes the defenders to try and call more numbers into the area to counter, and vice versa in escalation until you end up with thousands of people in a system and the joys of TiDi. Naturally then sov wars will always trend towards grinding battles of continued attrition because in reality there exist no real options but to fight that way.

Even now in non-sov related pvp the increasing trend towards defense with logi frigs and cruisers means that after a certain point the fights become nothing more than a question of, "Who has more logi in fleet."

Maybe it's all part of CCP's masterplan but I'm not sure if for many participants it's all that fun feeling like the entire game at all levels must be one massive grind no matter what you might try to do. I don't know, sometimes I think Eve would be much more fun if it was developed more like an actual Wargame or Strategy Game rewarding or permitting things like active defense, mobility, the offensive, real combined fleets where ships of all classes have identifiable roles, strengths, and weakness to exploit...

But no, I think the future is going to remain medieval castle warfare with spaceships and remote reps > all.

[Ayallah]

I cba reading 20 forums about one game anymore, so forgive me for not being up to speed on all of the past year's griping discussions about the game from all quarters.

I don't think anyone can anymore but the reply wasn't directed at you

The greatest reasons I see Eve stagnating is that the power creep over the years has essentially favoured defense over offense.

3 day long system timers when you can literally move an :apex: capital ship fleet across the entirety of eve in 15 minutes.

 

[Lyn Farel]

There is offense/defense/logi issues yes.

There is also what was mentionned above : no resource attrition anymore. When in the past losing your battleship fleet meant that you were in serious economical trouble was something.

If the amount of resources in the universe were finite, maybe determined by the harvesting activity of the previous day or just the number of active players, then we would not have resources limited only by the hours people can spend harvesting, but also by the finite number there is in resources spots.

[Havohej]

I don't think anyone can anymore but the reply wasn't directed at you

Of course; didn't mean to sound like I took it personal if that's how it came off.

[Silver Night]

I suppose they could reverse the HP buff from way back and halve all HP on everything. Would make Mael and Tempest pilots happy.

[Vikarion]

My recipe for fixing null?

1. No more jump bridges, titan or otherwise. All jumping via cynos. Reduce cyno range.

2. Titans and motherships have a maintenance cost - if you can't pay it, modules go offline.

3. As an alliance or corporation holds more Sov, they pay an escalating cost per system.

4. As an alliance or corporation holds more Sov, the time before a system comes out of "reinforced" decreases.

5. All player-built constructs, including outposts, made destructible.

6. Increase variance in the value of 0.0 sectors. Cluster good moons in areas nearly barren of NPCs, while creating excellent ratting/mining systems in areas of low moon quality.

Reasons:

It's my view that stagnation in 0.0 is driven mainly by three factors: defender's advantage, economic scale, and ease of maintaining an overwhelming force.

To the first, with the long reinforcement timers and quick travel between systems, no attacker can hope to take a valuable system before the defender gets there. Which leads us to the second point: because there is no major disadvantage in holding every system you can (after all, you can be there to defend it in minutes), people are incentivized to find the largest alliance, join it, and enjoy its larger capacity for for extracting wealth from territory. This, in turn, allows the alliance to grow even larger, and to take more (essentially free) territory. And they can do that, because of the third problem, which is that, unlike real life, in Eve you never even have to worry about maintaining a military after you've bought the hardware. Because of the fact that it's a one-time cost, Eve players never have to decide whether they should buy a ship they can afford right now. There's no penalty for plowing all your wealth into guns instead of butter. And because of this, whoever has the biggest fleet has nothing to worry about as a trade-off...ever.

That's bad.

[Esna Pitoojee]

4. As an alliance or corporation holds more Sov, the time before a system comes out of "reinforced" decreases.

Addressing this individually for a moment - I'm actually shocked this hasn't shown up in more "ideas on nullsec" threads. It's so blindingly simple that even I facepalmed when I realized I hadn't thought of it yet. Are people just averse to suggesting anything that might have a hint of more structure fights?

[Vikarion]

4. As an alliance or corporation holds more Sov, the time before a system comes out of "reinforced" decreases.

Addressing this individually for a moment - I'm actually shocked this hasn't shown up in more "ideas on nullsec" threads. It's so blindingly simple that even I facepalmed when I realized I hadn't thought of it yet. Are people just averse to suggesting anything that might have a hint of more structure fights?

I dunno. I just thought it up a bit ago.

[V. Gesakaarin]

I think null would be more interesting, engaging, and dynamic for me if there was a real option to live some kind of nomadic lifestyle out there. Where there was the potential to have industrial capital or sub-capital ships that gave real options for small corps or alliances to store ships, fit them, reprocess materials and build assets etc., on what's supposed to the frontier without the need to claim systems, build outposts, deploy starbases and join a mega-bloc as the only means to protect your interests.

[Morwen Lagann]

Considering how much people rage about anything involving shooting structures, I can see a few reasons why more structure timers would be a good thing.

More timers, more rage. More rage, more quit. More quit, more vulnerable blocs... after a while. >.>

[Louella Dougans]

destructible outposts has major implications for npc 0.0 and lowsec within jump range of 0.0.

mostly complaints about stuff being stored in those stations being invulnerable.

Precedent for player stuff in destroyed stations has been set in events - the Yulai and Malkalen stations that were destroyed in the Empyrean age - no effect on players at all.

[Jade Constantine]

Could be as simple as making a disclaimer box pop up when you join a sovereignty holding alliance with a null outpost?
(similar to the jumping into .4 space one)

"Capsuleer Outposts like everything else in 0.0 are vulnerable to destruction - do not store what you can't afford to lose"

---

By the by some of Vikarons ideas are good, I like escalating sov costs and reduced timers for spam. Now a goon will come along and say "this will lead to the creation of 1000 identical goonswarm 1+2+3+4+etc alliances to avoid it... But while I doubt that is practical anyway, the solution then is to offer each entity in the game a number of + standing slots (10,20,50) or something for free - then charge an escalating fee for additional ones - to make it economically impractical to run with a bunch of identical organizations effecively being the same meta organization. While you are at it - you could also make it impossible for any organization that holds sov to have non alliance members in its fleets - sure people can work round with voice coms but again it makes it harder, more confusing more prone to fiasco.

Of course, people will say - with the game in such a perilously boring state why would you make it harder for nullsec? Which brings me back to my initial post and the disconnect between those rank and file null members who hate the current status and boredom and will hate anything that makes their game harder and less convenient also.

[Lyn Farel]

I think that somewhat tying the size of controlled territory with money and upkeep is the wrong solution if done alone. Not in the concept, but generalizing a bit, putting limits tied to money is the worst thing to do.

The most famous example of why it is is just comparing the number of titans 6 years ago, and now. But more generally, the economy and the means at disposal to every alliance increases by the simple principle of economic growth. You just have to see how money is not even a problem anymore, and has not been for years now.

Your limits will maybe work the first year, then they will just get overwhelmed by the new capital at disposal for big entities.

The best way to do it imo would be to introduce universe scarcity, where resources to be harvested are limited in time and quantity, and always that corresponding to the number of players and harvesting activity to keep the same scarcity ratio.

Then you will see how even raw material will start to lack in huge wars or upkeep.

4. As an alliance or corporation holds more Sov, the time before a system comes out of "reinforced" decreases.

Addressing this individually for a moment - I'm actually shocked this hasn't shown up in more "ideas on nullsec" threads. It's so blindingly simple that even I facepalmed when I realized I hadn't thought of it yet. Are people just averse to suggesting anything that might have a hint of more structure fights?

I think that people will just try to circumvent such things by fragmenting their own structures into smaller ones, but all puppet to the same coalition.

And Jade's solution of + standings being limited would just kill NBSI altogether.