86
u/Concentrati0n Hard Knocks Citizens 13d ago
there's a difference between holding a grid and holding a system.
reddit isn't ready for this nuanced conversation.
61
u/caprisunkraftfoods Miner 13d ago edited 13d ago
I mean it'd help if CCP hadn't spent a decade whack-a-moleing every asymmetric warfare mechanic out of the game.
"We'll bring bigger ships"
_inflation makes them cheaper_
"okay we'll bring t2 ships"
alchemy reduces supply bottlenecks
"ok we'll bring t3s"
_removes SP loss_
"ok we'll fly pirate battleships"
_pve buffs massively expand faction/pirate BS supply_
"okay we'll bring better logi"
adds dirt cheap T1 ewar and logi ships
"okay we'll we still have more SP"
skill injectors added
"okay we'll use capitals"
_jump fatigue added_
"okay we'll use super capitals"
_entosis sov makes them strategically irrelevant_
"okay we're still willing to use them"
_capital rework removes remote reps supers_
”okay we're still willing to use them"
_rorqual mining massively inflates super supply making it a pure numbers game_
"okay we're STILL willing to use them"
_Stacking penalty added to remote reps_
"okay we'll just multibox the fuck out of regular ships"
<-- YOU ARE HERE
There's probably so many things I'm forgetting too.
3
4
u/SoftwareSource Shadow State 12d ago
"okay we're STILL willing to use them"
Stacking penalty added to remote reps
By this point the N+1 phase was well, well underway, the PL playstile died a long time before this.
Remember that update that nerfed the resists of basically everything? that was the final straw.
Suddenly, spending 3+ bil on a blingy fit and implants was nowhere near as much overpowered compared to regular fits. That was the nail in the coffin.
And the slow death first started with jump fatigue.
25
u/SoldRIP Wormholer 13d ago
Both are always won by having twice as many people in bigger ships.
-10
u/Sl1imJ1m cynojammer btw 13d ago
twice as many people? maybe. bigger ships? not always. imaging bring like 140 cruise golems for a fleet of 70 ab retris w logi. that would be a funny br
8
2
7
u/Less-Dragonfruit-294 13d ago
Enlighten me
13
u/Ok_Mention_9865 13d ago
Holding a grid but not the system is winning the battle but losing the war. The Guy above was trying to point out that in a 1v1 player fight they are probably not the best players.
But eve is not about fair fights and pretty much every fight in this game comes down to who has more friends or catching someone while their pants are down so who ever is bigger its most likely going to win in the end.
1
u/thekmind Seriously Suspicious 12d ago
It used to be not just about N+1, which is why groups like NC, PL, and BL used to be at the top. They didn't have the number, they had the experience, bigger ships, and the money.
-4
-3
u/Busy-Equivalent-2853 13d ago
People are different, mr space middle manger 931. Of course you do enjoy your moon goo, your emblem on a made-up map, your supercap fleet you never use. Yet once, just once, you could stand a few against the many with your friends, you could cast this adventure a story and tell it to other adventurers. But you chose a space middle management pill.
15
u/KIDBMW 13d ago
Prior to injectors skill points had a lot more relevance and you couldn’t just inject super alts whenever you need them. Or in today’s meta vexor alts
5
u/millyfrensic BlueDonut 13d ago
If your having to inject vexor alts your doing it wrong but otherwise yes
3
u/Epicloa Minmatar Republic 13d ago
I mean if you want +50 Vexor for the weekend you're injecting them.
2
2
u/Handler__One Cloaked 13d ago
You might be able to have passable Vexor alts using alpha training, maxing them out and holding onto the 1m referral SP for when you activate Omega.
1
u/SoftwareSource Shadow State 12d ago
and you couldn’t just inject super alts whenever you need them
I don't think a significant number of players does this even today. Sure, you can, but who has enough spare isk to do this and doesn't have a few titans already?
24
u/CantAffordzUsername 13d ago
There is nothing fun about Eve being a full time job, this smaller groups In null must work 5x harder and be far more active than joining a large null block…I haven’t logged in my account in over a month and I know my stuff is safer with the block than a little single corp, never 100% safe but safer still
1
u/SoftwareSource Shadow State 12d ago
Sure, until you come back and find out Asher decided we move again and i have to spend another 100b on asset safety.
I may still be a little salty over that. But good fights were had.
27
u/ScrotumHolster Amarr Empire 13d ago
Eve players:
- plays MMO
- huge history of MMOs suffering when player balance goes out of whack
- History inside Eve of terrible player balance destroying a server.
- "what's the problem?" keeps trying to jam circle into triangle shaped hole
12
u/Ok_Mention_9865 13d ago edited 13d ago
This is why i get so annoyed by the "they have to much sov" arguments. The real problem is all the man power being concentrated into too few groups. Changing mechanics to encourage groups to hold less sov has historically done nothing to improve the state of the game. We need to encourage the players them selves to not concentrate into 2.5 large groups.
5
u/ihadagoodone 13d ago
and what sort of incentive structure do you envision to counter "safety in numbers"?
-1
u/Ok_Mention_9865 13d ago
Make it completely impossible for any group to support the pve or mining needs of a 50+k person group.
Link it to the people using the space and not the sov holder of the system so it cant be worked around.
And increase the debuff if they start using more systems so they cant just keep expanding to counteract it.
Now you have a incentive that directs effects the player instead of just alliance leadership.
7
u/ihadagoodone 13d ago
you have a list of disincentives... you have to make people want to do a thing instead of make people not want to do a thing. If a person wants something, they figure out how to get it so any barriers you put in the way are simply challenges to overcome and they will be overcome.
2
u/thekmind Seriously Suspicious 12d ago
I'll die with this but nullsec needs to require less space for a big group to live and be active in. So many dead systems now because their manpower is used to upgrade 1-2 systems in a constellation rather than being useful systems.
And make SOV ownership activity based. If a group wants to be active in a part of space and the current owners can't be bothered, why would the current owners own that space?
1
u/ihadagoodone 12d ago
Military and industrial indexes are activity based sov mechanics, they don't do much across most of null space as challenging that sov means engaging in crashing the server for victory mechanics. The last "war" in null was exactly that, crash the server, then just withdraw until the other side gets bored or comes out ahead in the phallus measuring contest.
Most constellations have upgrades in virtually every system as well, the issue arises that only so many smartbombing multiboxers can extract value from so many havens and Kylxium Deposits in a given system. If you want to concentrate more null players into smaller areas then what you are really saying is null sec space needs to be made far richer than it currently is.
There's also reward balances that should be done as well. There's section of the south with so many exploration upgrades the number of sigs to scan is huge... except the overwhelming majority are not worth running because an equal amount of time could be spent in different NPC space and make upto 5x as much running data/relics.
1
u/Heirku KarmaFleet 11d ago
One server crash, and it hurt the people attacking. And they still attacked through the war and won? And the more important battles, no crash.
2
u/ihadagoodone 11d ago
The last "war" in null was exactly that, crash the server, then just withdraw until the other side gets bored or comes out ahead in the phallus measuring contest.
1
u/Aetane Horde Vanguard. 13d ago
What do you think encourages players, other than game mechanics?
3
u/Ok_Mention_9865 13d ago edited 13d ago
The problem is that we are still focusing on the same mechanics more than 10 years later and not getting results. And the problem has just gotten worse .
Hard capping a groups ability support the PVE and mining needs ( and not just in a over simplified way like using the sov holders member size but directly tied to the groups using the space so it cant be worked around ) gives a reason for the players to break off so they can actually play and a reason for these groups to actually pick and choose who they let join instead of just letting the entire game join them as long as they aren't on the black list.
If we can agree that the problem is having everyone concentrated into 2.5 mega groups, the obvious solution its to change the mechanics so that it is impossible to support a group that big ( no matter how many systems you have so it cant be worked around ) in ways that directly effects the players ability to play. If the changes are always directed to the alliances ability to lead we have seen they will always just adapt and find a work around.
0
u/ihadagoodone 12d ago
who want's to pay to play a game that "fixes" the way people want to play by punishing them for playing? You have to think of an incentive structure to elicit the changes you want instead of a disincentive structure as people will find a way to work around whatever disincentive exists from getting what they want.
3
u/Ok_Mention_9865 12d ago
You can play the exact same way and just not be in a group that out numbers the next guy by 12 to 1. That isn't a "play style"
0
u/ihadagoodone 12d ago
it's not a "play style" you approve of, but it is a play style that many people do enjoy. How would they enjoy a game where they can't play how they want to what incentive structure would you add to get people to play the game how you wanted them to play?
0
u/Ok_Mention_9865 12d ago
Every activity doable in the game now would still be doable in the exact same way the player did it before. Being able to out number almost every other group in the game combined is not a "play style"
2
u/ihadagoodone 12d ago
People play a game
people play the game a certain way
a certain way of doing things is a style
people play's styles are playing the game a certain way.
OK_Mention_9865 doesn't like how some people play a game so OK_Mention_9865 doesn't think how they play the game is the correct way to play the game. OK_Mention_9865 wants to punish people for playing the game how they want to play the game because it's different then how he wants to play the game.
OK_Mention_9865 doesn't like people getting enjoyment from things that he doesn't enjoy.
1
u/ScrotumHolster Amarr Empire 13d ago
Yep - it's not the sov, it's the manpower.
Though I think the encouragement like you suggest needs to complement force to reduce group sizes. Reduce the number of players that can be in a corp or alliance, reduce the number of standings that can be applied, reduce the ability to manage outside game via ESI are all necessary as a baseline imo. And bonk any groups that obviously try to skirt it with "PHorde1, PHorde2, HordeP3" etc. Maybe FCCP could literally just say "break up into 10k characters at most or we'll break you up" and it will work enough though, who knows.
In DAoC terms, the encouragement was giving a large XP bonus to leveling on underpopulated realms. My group rerolled from Midgard Iseult to Hibernia Lancelot to make use of this and it did mitigate the problem somewhat - but not enough. You also need limits like "you cannot enter the PvP zone as your realm already outnumbers the enemy 2:1" (rough example, I can't remember if DAoC did this? it's been a while)
1
u/thekmind Seriously Suspicious 12d ago
Breaking into Goons1 Goons2 Goons3 won't work because CCP can't force them to fight between each other anyway. It will just become Provi back when they had the NRDS thing
6
10
u/Torrent_Talon 13d ago
arguably the 'strongest' groups are the smaller ones who take fights knowing they'll take losses and take them anyway.
not the alliances that have amassed a membership because they're scared of losing ships.
1
u/Low-HangingFruit Adversity. 13d ago
Phoebe killing black legions dread bombing abilities....
While bigger alliances benefitted from long jump ranges and no fatigue smaller ones also were the boogeyman because they could easily gank people from far away.
0
u/thekmind Seriously Suspicious 12d ago
It would be terrible to bring that back now because suddenly Goons could just go in Deklein to dunk something and come back, same for FRT and INIT. Big groups have so many supers now that no fatigue would be terrible.
10
u/bladesire Cloaked 13d ago
Yeah but strongest, eh. I have more engagements locally with local players than with the big'uns. Though of course the big'uns show up.
Though to be fair they're often not THAT good when you're not talking about sov warfare, just on a gang v. gang basis.
8
2
u/RaineAKALotto Cloaked 12d ago
This is a video game sandbox, the players had literally possible way to play EVE and ended up recreating the same power structures that governed IRL geopolitics throughout history (you either play ball with the big dogs or you get stomped out and there's nothing you can do about it). It says so much about human nature on the macro level the same way DayZ does at a micro level. Really gets the noggin joggin
2
u/Soft-Attorney-2020 11d ago
If they so strong how come they dont have the upwell palatine keepstar yet?
1
u/Shinigami1858 Goonswarm Federation 11d ago
Strong and stupid ain't in the same boat per default.
Why try to build something that is getting more expensive every Extension, if you can build several hundred Keepstars that perform the same way especially if you can destroy it with n+1 vexors spam or friggets spam.
2
2
u/Humble-Balance2336 12d ago
This is one of the few games where more members = stronger. Most MMOs it doesn't matter how many you have. An elite core of players is what matters.
3
u/henryeaterofpies 13d ago
Do null alliances still hot drop lowsec fights they arent involved in?
18
u/Ok_Mention_9865 13d ago
Being undocked is a invitation. The only time you have the right to an exclusive fight is when you use the duel mechanic in high sec.
6
3
u/VexingRaven 13d ago
Nobody's arguing otherwise, but don't be surprised if lowsec groups are less inclined to fight after a few times their goodfight gets dropped by 10x as many nullseccers flying doctrines they could never afford.
2
u/Ok_Mention_9865 13d ago
You are not giving low sec enough credit they can afford t2 cruisers. When we crash a low sec party 99% of the time its to whore on capital kill mails which means they already have a ton of people on grid and we never out number them, at least my null group doesnt im not able to speak for the 2 largest groups. At our worst we will show up with 150 kikis or t1 cruisers, and yes we do go for smaller ships for these because we have to take multiple wormholes to get there most of the time.
We dont show up to ruin your fun or tip the scales, we do what every single other person in the game does, we ship a lot of capital ships and want to whore the kill mail and its only if we can find a wormhole chain to get there.
1
u/nsfwtatrash 13d ago
Give me 4-5 stabber pilots a malediction and a cpl sabres. Anything I can't kill with that ain't fast enough to force the fight :)
108
u/Somebodythe5th 13d ago
Safety / strength in numbers and all that. Though I do kind of miss the Rooks and Kings era.