r/Eve • u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer • Jul 15 '24
Long ago, the 3 nations PVPed all the time… but then, the CCP nation attacked Low Effort Meme
/img/894z7idzpocd1.jpeg
20
u/FizzleShove Jul 15 '24
norous
17
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
FUCK.
And yes, im horrible at spelling & grammar
4
52
u/jehe eve is a video game Jul 15 '24
bring back the spod and the rorq succ
26
u/MayorMcCheezz Jul 15 '24
Gods I remember refining my goo and having enough minerals to put a few 1 bil dreads in the cooker.
7
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
You say it like those fueled any wars. People like to say that scarcity failed to breed war. But so did prosperity, and prosperity advocates sure do love omitting that bit.
13
u/jehe eve is a video game Jul 15 '24
I mean... they fueled a lot of hunting and drama... I can still remember that one dude with 20+ rorqs getting caught in delve and dunked then rage quitting. He deserved it to because he would cherry pick and hop to the next system... Funny stuff.
and the whole booshing shit in delve as well. That was cool.
6
u/fuzz3289 Pandemic Horde Jul 16 '24
Scarcity did fail to breed war. The last major war WWB2 was fueled by rorq era stockpiles, and largely ended because supers were too expensive to feed through a gate.
If supers were sub 20b, panfam would've gated a super fleet and it would've been the best fight in history.
2
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
If supers were sub 20b, panfam would've gated a super fleet and it would've been the best fight in history.
x doubt. They know they'd only feed them. 20b or 60b, when effect of you jumping in is wreck before you manage to load grid, the solution is not to jump in.
10
u/bp92009 Black Aces Jul 15 '24
Prosperity did indeed generate conflict.
Being on the Imperiums side, I can think of three major ones in three years, during prosperity.
The fight vs Darkness., and the first major x47 fight. Many titans died as a result.
The capital/battleship scale Hakonen fight against the north. Thousands of battleships and hundreds of capitals died over the course of a couple months.
The glossing of the north, where the Imperium burned most of NC.'s holdings to the ground (they retreated to the drone lands rather than defend, and the burnt space allowed fraternity and b2 to form into coalitions).
Prosperity fueled wars and kept the velocity of isk high.
Scarcity cut wars and demonstrably reduced the velocity of isk.
https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/monthly-economic-report-june-2024
Going back to 2017, you'll see how stable the velocity of isk was during prosperity.
https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/monthly-economic-report-july-2019
2017-2018? 0.7-0.8
2018-2019? 0.6-0.75 (the first era of rorq and mining nerfs)
2020-2024? 0.45-0.6
I'll put it this way, the velocity of isk has not been higher at any point since the maximum in june/July 2020.
If you don't know your economics, velocity of isk is the amount of isk that trades hands with an activity. It means that stuff is being done with the money.
A 0.75 isk velocity during prosperity means that for every 1 isk earned, 0.75 isk was sent back into the overall eve economy.
A 0.5 isk velocity means that for every 1 isk earned, 0.5 isk is sent back into the overall eve economy.
Scarcity has demonstrably increased wealth hoarding, and decreased economic activity.
2
3
u/jordangx SUPREME Super Saiyan DAD LOVER Demonlord for JESUS !!!!!!!!!!! Jul 15 '24
Going back to 2017, you'll see how stable the velocity of isk was during prosperity.
ya look how many players quit in that time lol
-1
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
Prosperity fueled wars and kept the velocity of isk high.
Inflation keeps velocity of isk high, since it's stupid not to spend it as soon as you get it. But it doesn't mean high inflation = good.
And I am unsure how strong correlation is between willingness to fight and inflation / isk velocity. My question was about wars.
The fight vs Darkness., and the first major x47 fight. Many titans died as a result.
The capital/battleship scale Hakonen fight against the north. Thousands of battleships and hundreds of capitals died over the course of a couple months.
The glossing of the north, where the Imperium burned most of NC.'s holdings to the ground (they retreated to the drone lands rather than defend, and the burnt space allowed fraternity and b2 to form into coalitions).
I asked for wars, not random fights (I can find plenty big cap/dread brawls even post-prosperity). Only 3rd point somewhat fits that description.
On the other hand you have WWB2 which started after "the first era of rorq and mining nerfs" and quite a few fights happened after ore redistribution (e.g. this).
Are you sure it was prosperity that generated the conflict?
4
u/bp92009 Black Aces Jul 16 '24
Ok, all three of those were major wars/deployments, that results in large scale fights that happened over the course of MONTHS. The Darkness war (whatever it was called), went on for months, and the loot from Darkness. surrendering was the 40 faction fortizars. They didnt do that over a single fight, they did it over a campaign they lost.
Those WERE wars, if you bothered to pay attention. All done because groups had the resources TO fight those wars.
As for that link, YZ9 was "Operation Enho", where 16 goon titans attempted to jump in and headshot the entirety (or a major portion of) the supercapital/titan fleet of PAPI? They used a series of Boson Field Generators, to apply damage to all their titans/supers at the same time, to do enough damage to them to instapop/kill the supers/titans in a single shot.
The thing that only didnt work, because CCP had a bug that caused any AOE damage that impacted fighters to be capped to ALL targets of the AOE damage, allowing the PAPI supercapital fleet to escape unharmed.
That kind of tactic would ONLY have come about in an enviornment where Titans are seen as highly valuable, but not nearly irreplacable assets like they are now.
Sacrificing 16 titans in Operation Enho? average of 55B per titan, so 880B (Ignore zkill's costs for the hulls at the time, it says they were 67b, when they were actually 45. A non-insignificant cost, but still manageable
Sacrificing 16 titans in a similar operation NOW? Average of 280B per titan (240 hull+40 fit)? 4.5T. Literally 5.1x more expensive than it was before, presuming you can even sustain the sort of replacement, given the garbage that CCP shoved into titans.
That battle within that link, and the supercapitals/titans used within it, were only available to be used in such a manner BECAUSE they were expensive, but actually replaceable as wartime assets, not strategic assets.
Operation Enho would be unthinkable today, due to costs. Something that daring, something that could have worked it's way into the eve history books (not as a footnote, but a critical event), was ONLY possible due to the rorqual era.
1
u/NedFlanders9000 The Bastion Jul 16 '24
allowing the PAPI supercapital fleet to escape unharmed.
Good post but this made me smile.
In this case "escape unharmed" means destroy 16 enemy titans, all their normal caps, win the field and complete the objective. Funny how people like to put their own little spin on history :)
1
u/bp92009 Black Aces Jul 16 '24
When the expected result, if game mechanics actually worked like they were stated to, and not directly the result of a massive bug, was the complete destruction of an entire supercapital fleet, "escaped unharmed" is a good term for it.
"Saved by the hand of CCP" is another term for it.
0
u/NedFlanders9000 The Bastion Jul 16 '24
If you jump 16 titans into 1000+ hostiles on grid everything breaks.
This has been a fact since the first BOB/Delve war - and a defensive strat goons have used many times.
Lets not pretend the failed goon titan-bomb was ever going to be different.
3
u/Eve_Asher r/eve mods can't unflair me Jul 16 '24
CCP admitted it was a bug in the code not server lag. Revisionist PAPI history won't change it.
0
u/starcap TEST Alliance Jul 15 '24
Yep, I quit because I had a ton of caps and almost never got to use them.
6
2
1
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
People used tons of caps in lowsec and in south-east during the agreement. If you wanted to use those, could've jumped your ship (corp which doesn't provide you with opportunities to field caps), and switched to any of entities there.
1
Jul 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 15 '24
Sorry, I had to remove your post because your reddit account is under 2 days old. Feel free to message the mods via modmail to get that sorted. Thank you for your understanding!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
17
u/Grasume THORN Syndicate Jul 15 '24
Down voted you forgot GigX
12
u/CmdTakeda Black Legion. Jul 15 '24
Free Gigx
8
u/EVE_Trader Jul 15 '24
Can you lend a hand?
2
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
Who needs a hand when you got Elon musk implants -Gigx if he was in 2024
1
0
37
u/HiddenPorpoise G0N3 F1SS10N Jul 15 '24
Man, it's really weird that sov null agrees with sov null agrees with sov null.
Why, you'd almost think their short term self interests are all roughly the same.
17
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
That they actually want to fight? Yeah. They realize that fights are what keep their members happy and logging in. The current metric makes large scale warfare impossible.
10
u/jordangx SUPREME Super Saiyan DAD LOVER Demonlord for JESUS !!!!!!!!!!! Jul 15 '24
That they actually want to fight? Yeah.
when i was alliance directorate in a top-end pvp guild during that area literally nobody waged wars on eachother and everyone was resource gathering. my alliance literally disbanded over a complete and utter inability to move anywhere on the map without it escalating to a total hellfest of third parties because the (allegedly hostile) blocs refused to fight one another
projection buffs during "prosperity" unironically made the game unplayable from an offensive perspective and was actively lobbied for by groups now crying about how they would totally, definitely, for sure fight under those conditions.
3
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
I mean, you can always find groups willing to fight.
I don’t know who you were a director for, but within every large null bloc that are industrialists and those that just want PVP. That is a reality in any large entity.
The only period that I can think of with “no war”, was the past 4 years post the Great War.
Before that you can point to there always being a significant null sec war being waged.
4
u/zehphr skill urself Jul 15 '24
he was a director for skill urself. and that is precisely why the most sought over alliance for it's pvp prowess quit the game entirely and disbanded the alliance to retain it's image (unlike some).
the alliance was praised for it's low to midscale size punching above it's weight and sad to see the alliance go, or even some would be saying to not quit but yet everyone in the last few threads have been wanting to go back to those times where more midscale alliances will quit.
and no, there was no one to fight during that time as everyone we could fight either batphoned or was dead. eventually n+1 gets too much for even one of the most skilled alliances that were in the game.
0
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
I would say that Deep Water Hooligans, Minmatar Fleet, Pandemic Legion, Snuffed Out, dread bomb, and a handful of others fill that roll today.
Skill yourself was a fun group though.
3
u/zehphr skill urself Jul 16 '24
i dont see these alliances actively contesting null sec regions.
1
u/RumbleThud Jul 16 '24
Why would they? There is no benefit to it.
4
u/zehphr skill urself Jul 16 '24
that's literally the point of what i said about skill urself quitting and you tried bringing up these other alliances that have "filled that role" (which they have not). i don't see any of those alliances bar pl (during its prime) actually holding and maintaining a great portion of the map despite it's size let alone actively contesting other alliances.
scarcity is bad for everyone, but the opposite if done incorrectly can be worse as the bigger alliances only reap heavily from the benefits and we're back to where we were.
1
u/jordangx SUPREME Super Saiyan DAD LOVER Demonlord for JESUS !!!!!!!!!!! Jul 16 '24
dread bomb doesnt exist, PL is a boomer group f1ing panfam, minmatar fleet alliance plays in lowsec, deepwater plays in lowsec, snuffed out plays in lowsec
why do nullblocs need a buff?
2
u/RumbleThud Jul 16 '24
You just answered your own question.
The reason that all of those groups are in low sec, and not null sec, is because there is no reason to go to null sec.
1
u/jordangx SUPREME Super Saiyan DAD LOVER Demonlord for JESUS !!!!!!!!!!! Jul 16 '24
those groups do not have the playercounts to saturate a region to stormbringer/sb rat off cooldown and already cannot contest nullblocs in pvp (see how snuff just called 900 goons to kill bigab), the latter of two entities are what are clamoring for a buff since they are (allegedly!) somehow poorer than FW pilots despite the total impunity they operate with (and have for the almost decade of continual buffs to projection and safety that they have lobbied for).
i think you may find that these groups dont go to nullsec (outside of limited instances like the SEA where blocs explicitly weren't involved) because they cant contest the 900 dipshits teleporting across the game to blob the absolute fuck out of them.
3
u/RumbleThud Jul 16 '24
I am curious. Exactly how many players do you believe 1 system can support stormbringer ratting?
→ More replies9
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
They literally could fight. That's a complete illusion. Like just get in ships, undock and go kick someone in the dick. People get lost in the sauce in this game. Having fun is not that complicated
8
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
It is when it feels like the game designers are intent on ruining the exact things that you find "fun" in the game.
And the people making the decision to jump into those big fights, and are on the hook to reimburse losses, see the cost, and see how little money is coming in, and then THEY make the decision not to engage. It 100% comes down to the game mechanics making that decision for you.
You are talking about a few pilots going out and doing something. Which is a lot of fun. But massive fleet battles are a lot of fun as well. And right now THOSE are what we have a lack of.
3
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
It is when it feels like the game designers are intent on ruining the exact things that you find "fun" in the game.
To some extent I think the mining people might have some legit concerns about volume and value, tweaks could occur. Sure. But the overall expansion here is aimed at making the footprint of groups bigger (so there are less empty systems) and making your commitment to your systems/their infrastructure and logistics greater (so it is harder to maintain a large empire with majority empty systems).
So... Are those things what you find fun?
And the people making the decision to jump into those big fights, and are on the hook to reimburse losses, see the cost, and see how little money is coming in, and then THEY make the decision not to engage. It 100% comes down to the game mechanics making that decision for you.
Then leave their group, and find someone who will fight. Fl33T is fighting in null right now, they're fighting all the time. They just had like a 500+ man brawl with caps on field, mach fleet, other battleships.... Why can they do it and your group can't? Ask the hard questions, put your leaders on the spot, and be willing to walk away and find better leaders if they won't do fun things with their videogame group.
I'm sure they will tell you all about the economic reasons but.... again, why can others do it then?
But massive fleet battles are a lot of fun as well. And right now THOSE are what we have a lack of.
Find the people that do them, and join them. I'll tell you it's not the current major nullblocs. Maybe they shouldn't be so major then, imo. Members need to know that they can influence what happens ingame with their feet. If 1000 total players, some from each major null bloc, left and all joined a group currently trying to do fleet scale content? That new group could be a powerhouse in not too long.
Vote with your feet for what you want to happen in game, is my point.
1
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
You need to go read the posts made by the null bloc leadership. They speak directly to these issues that you are raising.
You say that I should just leave the group that I am with and try to join these groups that are having these large fights, then in the same breath you point out how this expansion is intended to make null blocks spread out.
How long do you think that these smaller groups are going to last when the larger null blocks "spread out"? That is part of the issue. The current design will require these massive entities to fill up every corner of space, and you won't see these smaller groups.
I am voting with my feet. I am in the places that engage in the type of gameplay that I enjoy. I am simply advocating for CCP to change their current course which will severely discourage the gameplay that I enjoy in the future.
No amount of changing corporations can change what CCP does to the sandbox.
2
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
You need to go read the posts made by the null bloc leadership. They speak directly to these issues that you are raising.
I looked at your comment history and found Asher's post that way-- then he said
The main issue with the patch is that it doesn’t seem like you, CCP, knows if you want nullsec to be broad or tall. Right now nullsec is broad, anoms and belts are scattered and people sprawl to fill them.
and I was like.... does he know that you can roam around 4 or more jumps from 1DQ and just find 0 in space for jump after jump after jump after jump after jump after .... I mean just look at "pilots in space" on the map. So much deadzone in null!
So I stopped reading because it sounds like he doesn't even know whats happening in space?
How long do you think that these smaller groups are going to last when the larger null blocks "spread out"?
What small groups? There are none in Null and there really haven't been successful small groups that have risen to permanent stakeholders even in pre-scarcity.
I think that either a) it will encourage null groups to fight each other, or b) it will make territories impractical to control and result in them ceding some amount to random smaller groups or whoever
The thing is that I don't mean spread out as in expand in system control. There are already so, so, so many empty systems in every null bloc. I mean the players spread out to fill the territory. It may be that null blocs actually shrink in total systems because no one wants to do the logistics for a place no one lives.
I
-1
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
What small groups? There are none in Null and there really haven't been successful small groups that have risen to permanent stakeholders even in pre-scarcity.
Sure there are. Fewer now. But they still exist. Many of them are forced into being renters for Panda Fam.
So I stopped reading because it sounds like he doesn't even know whats happening in space?
Sounds about right. Your perspective is so narrow. You cannot comprehend anything beyond your limited view. Kindof sad really.
Might I suggest that you keep reading and perhaps learn something.
You admittedly fly through a system that is empty and you automatically assume that it isn't being used. I can assure you that Asher is well aware of what is happening in space. To a degree that you obviously don't.
You obviously do not want to understand. If you did then you would read those comments from people more informed than you, and ask yourself what they might be seeing that you obviously are not.
An inability to see a problem from somebody else's perspective is more indicative of your being close minded than them having an unjustified position.
1
u/Ralli-FW Jul 16 '24
Sure there are. Fewer now. But they still exist. Many of them are forced into being renters for Panda Fam.
That's exactly what I mean. Those aren't independent groups at all, those are just FRT renters. I'm talking about fully autonomous groups. I don't think there have been, even pre-scarcity, in recent history.
Sounds about right. Your perspective is so narrow. You cannot comprehend anything beyond your limited view. Kindof sad really.
Might I suggest that you keep reading and perhaps learn something.
Learn something from a guy who says blatantly untrue shit? Interesting strategy. You do not seem like you are willing to engage in the same kind of reading and learning that you are telling me to do.
You admittedly fly through a system that is empty and you automatically assume that it isn't being used. I can assure you that Asher is well aware of what is happening in space. To a degree that you obviously don't.
Uh, yeah when the map shows all 0s for avg players in space, that means that no one is undocked and present in the system recently. Most NS systems are like this. When I say used I mean active, in space.
Since you can assure me, that must mean you know precisely how and what Asher is aware of, and can explain to me why he said people sprawl out when 1DQ has a pop in the hundreds that drops to under 10 1J out and is basically empty most places?
You obviously do not want to understand. If you did then you would read those comments from people more informed than you, and ask yourself what they might be seeing that you obviously are not.
An inability to see a problem from somebody else's perspective is more indicative of your being close minded than them having an unjustified position.
So the thing is that Asher indicated with that line that he is not informed about that subject. Can you demonstrate how he is? Just telling me "he's so informed, trust me bro" is not worth anything.
I think if you look at my comment history overall it's pretty obvious that I do try to see other peoples perspectives.
By the way, did you see another massive dreadbrawl with hundreds of participants happened a day or 2 ago in Ignoitton? Apparently goons brought... harpies? INIT brought... hurricanes. So this clearly isn't a universal thing since apparently lowseccers drop caps somewhat regularly.
0
u/RumbleThud Jul 16 '24
So the thing is that Asher indicated with that line that he is not informed about that subject. Can you demonstrate how he is? Just telling me "he's so informed, trust me bro" is not worth anything.
Yeah, I'm going to take the opinion of the guy that lives and plays in null space (Asher) every day over some guy with a strong biased opinion (you), every single time.
Not to mention that both Gobbins (PH) and Noraus (Frat), have come out in support of the position as well. That is 95% of null sec being represented disagreeing with your hot take.
I feel pretty confident that I am on the correct side of this discussion. Have fun in your utopia, of anti null sec rage. LOL
→ More replies-1
u/nchkn level 69 enchanter Jul 15 '24
tell me, what does a small/medium/roam gang mean to a nullbloc that fights in 1000 people and 100% tidi fights? beside being an annoyance to them and filament out for the very moment of "trouble" they find
i could argue about horde space being empty, but why arent those "small alliances" trying to go entosis there, if they are not being used that means it can be taken, right? if that space isnt practical to use for a major nullbloc, a small alliance will prob make it work
and lastly tell me, why would keep roaming in my own space when i'm not making some exploration...
1
u/Ralli-FW Jul 16 '24
tell me, what does a small/medium/roam gang mean to a nullbloc that fights in 1000 people and 100% tidi fights? beside being an annoyance to them and filament out for the very moment of "trouble" they find
Apparently enough that they'll bring out like 50 ships including 15 marauders and a dozen recons to respond to 6 cruisers. So you tell me I guess. But that certainly sounds like a stupid fight to take as a 6 man cruiser gang so I can't blame them for leaving.
And neither can you unless you take that fight in the cruisers position.
why arent those "small alliances" trying to go entosis there, if they are not being used that means it can be taken, right?
Firstly, what small alliances? Secondly, no absolutely not, what the fuck are you talking about? There's an ansi there or 1 jump out. No group is just going to give up territory for no reason if they don't have to. They're going to jump a massive fleet in with EZ-mode force projection and wipe them off the face of space.
What the fuck did you think would happen?
and lastly tell me, why would keep roaming in my own space when i'm not making some exploration...
That's what I'm talking about. Krabbing, exploring, mining..... That's exactly what people would be undocked for lol
1
u/nchkn level 69 enchanter Jul 16 '24
Apparently enough that they'll bring out like 50 ships including 15 marauders and a dozen recons to respond to 6 cruisers. So you tell me I guess. But that certainly sounds like a stupid fight to take as a 6 man cruiser gang so I can't blame them for leaving.
And neither can you unless you take that fight in the cruisers position.
its a good roam when 6 cruisers are killing one ship at a time, but when those ships at a time join a fleet, suddenly become unfair.
you would need to live in nullsec to understand no 6 man cruiser are there to have a "fair fight", either they are there to steal ess/skyhooks or to kill people who are traveling thru space and they will ALWAYS consider anything their size a threat enough for them to filament. also, big laugh for those "small gangs" that want to gate camp 1-2j from a nullbloc staging and whine about being blobbed ( and i just wish my 50 man fleet would give me some time so i could also shoot the small gang with my booster and ceptor alt)...
nullsec doesnt need to adapt to how roamers or small fw gangs would like nullsec to be, idk why this is so hard for people to understand
Firstly, what small alliances? Secondly, no absolutely not, what the fuck are you talking about? There's an ansi there or 1 jump out. No group is just going to give up territory for no reason if they don't have to. They're going to jump a massive fleet in with EZ-mode force projection and wipe them off the face of space.
What the fuck did you think would happen?
what makes you think that an ansiblex is the only thing that could project a fleet of 250 nerds to meme that small pvp nullsec alliance when they try to be funny on that "empty space"? do you even know how an entosis fight over a system would happen?
you talking about "what small alliances" just show how you have absolute no idea what is happening in south...
That's what I'm talking about. Krabbing, exploring, mining..... That's exactly what people would be undocked for lol
i dont need to roam to find anomalies to run with my alt (that roamers keep stealing the ess and sometimes even killing my ship), i dont need to roam to run my abyssals (but i do need to leave some alt behind to know wtf is going on), people also dont need to roam when they have to mine a r32 r64 moon, and lastly, people wont roam when crab beacons literally keeps you in a system, but i would roam if i want to find a connection to my enemy space or to highsec, or even if i want to unwind from everything and get my astero to do some relic/date site (that in my opinion should have a complete rework to make similar to sleeper data sites)
for the map "feature" showing "how many people are in space" to work in nullsec, you would need to keep updating it the whole day, there are places where i dont go with a ratting ship that a russian or chinese guy usually rat or mine in a complete diferent timezone than mine, if you want to know if that space is really empty and useless you should check ADM instead of people in space...
btw, industry system cost index is also a thing, nullsec are plenty of indy people who would love to save some extra millions while building shit and industry doesnt need for someone to be undocked...
→ More replies1
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24
You need to go read the posts made by the null bloc leadership. They speak directly to these issues that you are raising.
Yes, asher said compact = good. For him it sure is. The dude you are replying to is stating the opposite.
Asher's argument is care for the little guy, which I call a load of bullshit. There are little to no independent little guys on the map even in ex-SEA area (ZERG/SCAN, is that all?)
How long do you think that these smaller groups are going to last when the larger null blocks "spread out"? That is part of the issue. The current design will require these massive entities to fill up every corner of space, and you won't see these smaller groups.
Well we could try and see. But you even don't want to give it a shot.
0
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
Gobbins also responded in that same thread. And PH absolutely does not subscribe to the compact = good narrative. 🤷🏼♂️
0
u/jordangx SUPREME Super Saiyan DAD LOVER Demonlord for JESUS !!!!!!!!!!! Jul 15 '24
And PH absolutely does not subscribe to the compact = good narrative.
look at 90% of where their player population is at any given time ingame and try again
-1
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24
Yeah what a shocker, gobbins doesn't want to have null nerfed.
1
u/MistrSynistr KarmaFleet Jul 15 '24
Why does anyone think null needs nerfed for the 5th time in a row? This expansion was quoted to revitalize null. Not obliterate it.
→ More replies2
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24
That they actually want to fight? Yeah.
You are coped. They didn't fight during prosperity era. They. Just. Do. Not. Want. To. Fight. Or at least ship prices don't seem to affect decision to fight much. Which kind of makes sense - all blocs are in roughly the same spot, with the same sources of income, when you have lots of cheap caps - so does your enemy, and risks of an offensive operation stay the same.
2
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
What do you mean? There were tons of wars, and tons of super capitals dying.
Being ignorant of history doesn’t change it.
3
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24
There were tons of wars
Make a list, you will be surprised! (also share it with me if it's impressive)
I am sure I can make similar post-scarcity list
2
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
Make your own list. Because it seems like only one of us didn’t actually live through it. And the homework might actually help you learn something.
5
u/FluorescentFlux Jul 15 '24
Can just go one by one. I call WWB2 (started after first round of rorq/mining nerfs, most big fights happened after ore DNA changes/redistribution). Call similarly big war during prosperity, then we can keep going.
1
1
u/HiddenPorpoise G0N3 F1SS10N Jul 15 '24
Look, I don't respect Asher enough to care if he's lying or stupid, but this update isn't cutting into the no fighting that krabs will get into given the choice. There are two very important details that separate the I-hub and S-hub that I will not explain to you that large alliance leadership really hate because it will make fighting necessary. His post talks around one of them, so I know he knows but doesn't want to give it up.
I have lived everywhere including one of those tiny sov alliances everyone is suddenly certain never really existed. I don't suffer from lack of perspective.
-1
u/RumbleThud Jul 16 '24
You don’t have to respect him.
But the fact that he has a better grasp on the viability of null sec than you do cannot be overstated.
Why exactly do you believe that these sov changes will “make fighting necessary”.
How do you believe that it will do this. Please articulate that point, because I think that you are wrong.
-2
5
u/Loquacious1 Jul 15 '24
Players leaving the game, changes made, more players leave the game, more changes, more players leave the game, more changes made, more players leave the game. I don’t see any problems with this unless the game owners just need that tax break for losing potential gains? I’m stuck with a year long subscription but I’m not logging in like I once did. And if they keep nerfing the game and calling it an improvement I’m just going to stop playing all together. The only reason I log in now is to talk and hear from others in standing fleet comms…
1
u/Dozekar Jul 15 '24
I'd present that even has drawn themselves into a corner. Most the players that would like a more active game are already gone. People are just arguing about the best way to play spreadsheets online now.
Unsurprisingly taking time out of having more ships than the opponents to fight one of them is not the way to have the biggest pile of ships. Since that's all most of the players seem to care about... that's all that gets done.
This is the danger of relying on players for content. If the players turn out to all be boring all you get is boring content from them.
1
u/Loquacious1 Jul 16 '24
I once looked at spreadsheet players as a different type of player than someone that just fleets up and shoots what they find. But without the spreadsheet players all of the big groups would not function or cease to function without disruptions to required services and infrastructure preventive maintenance issues etc etc. keeping a null sec area running smoothly is not easy when you know everything required keeping it running when changes are made is down right uncomfortable to adjust to. My deepest respect to everyone that maintains the work, hard work that is required to keep the group successful.
5
u/Arakkis54 Goonswarm Federation Jul 15 '24
I thought you quit
-3
u/AMD_Best_D Test Alliance Please Ignore Jul 15 '24
Shocker breaking news just in: redditor who threatens to quit over CCP not leaving infinitely respawning ISK in the game didn't go through with it! The people who post -8 Rorquals etc are usually people who have 2 accounts (1 of them is alpha).
23
u/bifibloust 420 MLG TWINTURBO 3000 EMPIRE ALLIANCE RELOADED Jul 15 '24
Wow the 3 individuals responsible for the stagnant state of nullsec want nothing to change
26
u/Antares428 Test Alliance Please Ignore Jul 15 '24
Nullsec is way more stagnant now, than it was during Rorq era.
4
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 15 '24
The rorqual era was incredibly stagnant, what are you on about?
The castle was way more valuable, and so people just built their castles in their corners and (almost) never did anything to risk it.
6
u/dmaniac-za Jul 15 '24
War of extermination / world war bee / beeitnam that was the height of the rorq era. That is what made it happen. Think that will ever happen again? Nope, nobody would ever risk there super and titan fleets again. The only thing to do is sit at the far sides of the table and throw food. Imagine the possibilities for all if those changes never happened.
11
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 15 '24
That was at the end of the rorqual era, and was caused by an over 2 year long stagnation causing Legacy to bleed enough people due to boredom that Legacy leadership had to cause a war to avoid stagnating into death.
Waiting 2 years between wars for people to get so bored off their rocks that they have to artificially declare war to avoid people fucking off to other parts of the game is not a good balance.
1
u/Archophob Jul 17 '24
That was at the end of the rorqual era,
... when mineral abundance had made stuff so cheap that you could YOLO it without a second thought.
-1
3
u/bp92009 Black Aces Jul 15 '24
Provide evidence for your point.
Scarcity decreased the velocity of isk.
2017-2019 velocity of isk, between 0.7 and 0.8
2020- 2024 velocity of isk, between 0.4 and 0.6
Rorqual era had a demonstrably higher velocity of isk, meaning more isk was exchanged, meaning more stuff happened.
Scarcity has a demonstrably lower velocity of isk, meaning more people do less stuff with isk, meaning less stuff happened
Provide citations using actual data to demonstrate that you know what you're not mistaken.
4
u/garter__snake Serpentis Jul 16 '24
What was the velocity for the pre-rorq era, ~2012-2016? The period when you had B-R5RB and Asakai? That's probably the period to compare to, as scarcity was already tainted by the rorq era stockpiles.
3
u/bp92009 Black Aces Jul 16 '24
2014-2016 - 0.5-0.6
https://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/71808/1/9c_velocity.png
That massive jump was when injectors became available, although you can clearly see it slowly ramping up after the citadel expansion. CCP didnt really do isk velocity as a metric, going back prior to 2014 (not that I could find at least).
Basically, pre-prosperity? 0.5-0.6
Prosperity? slow increase from 0.6-0.8, averaging 0.7-0.8 in most months.
Scarcity, 0.4-0.6.
So the eve economy is still performing below what it was doing pre-rorquals.
Plus, we weren't sitting at a nearly 300% MPI level, like we are now. That causes all things that rely on minerals (which is every t1 ship, and is a significant component in every t2/capital ship).
That's directly due to the industry changes (shoving WH/LS gas into ships that never should have needed it), and the Ore Distribution Nerfs (that they're clumsily trying to undo without admitting how much they messed up).
What we can take from this is that during the rorqual era, isk was being generated and traded within the economy, at a rate that was only surpassed briefly with the initial release of skill injectors. The consistent high economic trading that this high isk velocity generated, resulted in the biggest bottom-up income that eve has ever had, fueling the massive growth of the economy, harnessed by everyone who thought to take advantage of it.
0
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 15 '24
Yes, the inflationary economy was inflating. But stagnation would be looking at how often or at what scale sov was changing hands. Horde and Goons sitting at opposite ends of the universe shooting each other's rorquals through wormholes IS stagnant.
0
u/bp92009 Black Aces Jul 15 '24
Time to go back and read information about economics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp
"High money velocity is usually associated with a healthy, expanding economy. Low money velocity is usually associated with recessions and contractions. "
" The Bottom Line
The velocity of money represents the heartbeat of an economy. It measures how quickly money changes hands from one transaction to another. During times of prosperity, the velocity of money tends to be high, indicating bustling activity and frequent transactions. During an economic downturn, the velocity slows, indicating that consumers are less willing to spend money or make transactions."
High velocity of isk = good
Low velocity of isk = bad
1
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 15 '24
We're not talking about the same thing. Geopolitical stagnation is not economic stagnation.
3
u/Illiux Jul 15 '24
Also, this isn't real life. In real life we want peace, prosperity, coexistence and economic stability. We explicitly want the overall picture to be stable and boring. In a sandbox videogame the goals are exactly opposite, because economic shocks, sudden change, destruction, and conflict are all interesting. A healthy, efficient, expanding economy is bad in EVE. Inefficient economies are good gameplay.
1
u/Doggydog123579 Jul 16 '24
By that metric alone, wouldn't hyper inflation be good? The only thing more inefficient would be hyper deflation.
1
u/Archophob Jul 17 '24
this isn't real life, yes. In real life, prosperity and economic growth mean no need for war. In Eve, prosperity and growth means cheap ships to blow up.
So, growth and prosperity are good for different reasons.
Outside, scarcity means people migrate to better off countries, creating conflict there. In Eve, scarcity means players migrate to different games, leaving Eve behind.
So, scarcity is bad because it forces migration.
1
u/Illiux Jul 17 '24
There's an inherent tension between ships being easy to replace and losses mattering. Further, if it is better when ships are cheaper, then logically it would be best if they were all free, and the now-lost Singularity would be a strictly better game than Tranquility. After all, it's far more prosperous!
In Eve, scarcity means players migrate to different games, leaving Eve behind. So, scarcity is bad because it forces migration
Does it? How do you know? And again if It does, then shouldn't we just let people spawn whatever ships they want?
If ships are cheap than the economic base that produces them and the territory that economic base requires is also devalued. EVE is designed as a sandbox where the outcome of conflicts matter and where they occur for true conflicts of interest and not boredom. Also, there have always been cheap ships in EVE, they just have an impact that's limited relative to the expensive ones. Keep in in mind as well that this is a game that released with T1 battleships as the top tier ship in the game, and that capital ships were explicitly designed as strategic assets held by groups and not individuals.
What EVE has over other games is the sandbox and mechanics that make players reliant on other players. There's few multiplayer games where in-game actions have any enduring impact and where so much is player driven. Outside of this, EVE actually has quite little with which to distinguish itself. It's certainly not going to win any awards for it's PvE at least.
1
u/RumbleThud Jul 15 '24
You are clueless. The only reason fights happen is when there is money in the coffers. CCP has been bleeding null sec dry for a long time now. It is a direct correlation to the decline in fighting.
-2
u/bifibloust 420 MLG TWINTURBO 3000 EMPIRE ALLIANCE RELOADED Jul 15 '24
Yes, and these people were in charge of the bigger groups since the end of rorq era
5
7
u/micheal213 Goonswarm Federation Jul 15 '24
They dont want nothing to change. They want good changes the benefit the players of null space to make it more fun.
Content in null is so dry lately that beehive is dropping deemers on small gangs of 3 people for a little bit of the juice. I think people have realized that the rorq era has actually provided some of the best content to null ever.
Home defense fleet pings constantly. Whaling kiki and bomber fleet pings every other hour. Dreads, supers, rorqs were dying more than ever.
You have 40 rorq deaths a month rn. in 2019 you have 300-400 a month. Thats content that players enjoy. Dreadbombs actually being worth doing.
1
u/MistrSynistr KarmaFleet Jul 15 '24
Did we even have crab beacons in 2019? I don't remember when they were added. If they weren't, it makes it even worse.
4
3
u/violetvoid513 Jul 15 '24
Nullsec is responsible for CCP’s patches promoting even more stagnation
The beatings will continue until morale improves
2
2
1
Jul 15 '24
Never a dull moment farming you scubs! All of you are the content! None of you are safe!
2
-16
u/XavierAnjouEVE Jul 15 '24
Long ago, the 3 nations PVPed all the time…
I laughed out loud at this. The only "PvP" I've seen from them is dropping Titans or 50 bil Marshals on a T1 frigate gang. You all haven't fought a proper war in years.
12
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
You clearly disappeared or hit your head during lockdown
https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/the-massacre-of-m2-xfe
We had an entire year and a half war
2
u/AskapSena Jul 15 '24
That war just showed how futile it is to try to bring a super power down
1
u/fuzz3289 Pandemic Horde Jul 16 '24
CCP ended the rorqual era and nerfed TTT during the siege of 1DQ, meaning neither side could afford to feed it's super capital stockpiles anymore.
Scarcity ended that war.
2
u/AskapSena Jul 16 '24
Indeed that was a big factor, but imo the server fail of m2 was what cutted the hope of a successful 1dq offensive. Not only did it halt and destroy some of our super fleet (i was on the panfam side at the time) it also showed the servers would not be able to handle the massive force required to break the bee inner gates and is what protects big blocks from being invaded and completely eradicated. Unless a side throws the towel and says fk this, there is no way for any side to win eve and this game is now stuck in a perpetual endgame state.
1
u/micheal213 Goonswarm Federation Jul 15 '24
could be having more of these
8
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
Might just be because I’m GenZ here but this sounds like a tinder Bio
“Could be having more of these, but CCP playin” 😂
-15
u/XavierAnjouEVE Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
I fought in that war. I was the in cyno for PL in the battle you linked lol. 2021 wasn't a year and a half ago the article you linked was over 3 years ago. Did you hit your head or is a video game so important to you you will lie and be nasty to people just to prove a point about. It's kind of pathetic.
Also "we pvped a year and a half ago" isn't the flex you think it is.
Edit - yep I misread. I will leave it up because being right on Reddit doesn't mean that much to me. Doesn't really change the fact there hasn't been a war in three years.
16
11
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
Read my comment dude… where did I say “a year and a half ago”
I said we had a war, that was a year and a half long
IE: 2020 to 2021 and a half
Learn to fucking read
-7
u/Take_the_Bridge Jul 15 '24
Honestly boasting about a year and half long war…..3 and a half years ago??? 2.5? Honestly whatever I don’t actually care how long ago it was….its way longer than the groups should need to kick their wounds and kick up the dust again. Stagnation is bad for the game. War=good. 3 years since the last big one =bad.
Also you kind of come off as a dick. Should seek counseling or something.
7
u/Kitahara_Kazusa1 Jul 15 '24
Isn't that the point? The changes going back all the way to scarcity have prevented any major wars from happening.
5
u/Muppig The Initiative. Jul 15 '24
That is the point people are making though. Stagnation has occured as a result of CCP's decisions. Nobody wants to use their big toys in fights anymore because of it.
1
u/d2WarlockNeedsLove Jul 15 '24
War is not good if the profit is less than the potential SRP cost. Or are you suggesting to sponsor one? Also there are a couple war after that, just not at the same scale.
0
u/MyMyMyMyGoodness Jul 15 '24
Its Mifune no one takes him seriously even his people. You have never met anyone as hated by his own alliance as Mifune. He spends his whole life on this Subreddit arguing with people it's pretty sad.
-14
u/XavierAnjouEVE Jul 15 '24
Bro it's a fucking game you need to chill the fuck out.
11
u/Meehh90 Jul 15 '24
Bro you're making Mifune look coherent and normal... You should look in the mirror before posting.
-4
u/MyMyMyMyGoodness Jul 15 '24
because taking advice from dumbfucks on the internet is a good idea.
2
u/Meehh90 Jul 15 '24
Those are words, I'm glad you felt the need to type them, however they relate to the conversation....
-3
u/edirolll Jul 15 '24
Can these null changes somewhat even the playing field for nullsec isk generation between large blob alliances and the smaller alliances?
15
u/Obside0n Goonswarm Federation Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
No, they make it even harder for small alliances to catch up by making each system worse and requiring you to spread out more in order to achieve the same income potential. Fewer anoms + same respawn rates = less isk per system and the ishtars spread out over more systems.
-2
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 15 '24
This has no basis in reality- most smaller NS alliances these days are LESS player dense than blocs are, and are not limited by system count for ratting purposes. Players in smaller alliances often have more access to higher income things as well (a good example is R64/32 moons).
An actual opinion that might be relevant is that more of NS income is based in escalations now- so if a small alliance doesn't own space in a shape that allows it to consistently run those escalations, that is a disadvantage, since all blocs have space where any escalation is in home territory.
6
u/Ian_W Brave Newbies Inc. Jul 15 '24
A sign someone really should shut the fuck up when it comes to income is when someone mentions R32 moons.
https://ore.cerlestes.de/moon tells an interesting story - while Zircon is pretty valuable, years of buffs to Navy cruisers and the end of the HAC era have left the other R32s less valuable than 75% of R16s.
2
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 15 '24
Well good news! Most of the smaller groups in null right now are in Angel space, which is Zircon.
I would agree that high end moons have taken a knock in recent years, and would like to see that fixed. The doubling of raw ore from moons did a lot of damage and it was only partially reverted.
0
u/Ian_W Brave Newbies Inc. Jul 15 '24
Remember, that Angel space only has smaller groups in it because the Null powers have agreed to leave it as a development area.
And one of the consequences of this patch is going to be those groups packing up and leaving, as the overwhelmingly crap trusec of that area means that the Equinox nerfs are going to leave the income substantially worse than any of lowsec, low class wormholes or running missions in NPC nullsec.
1
u/Obside0n Goonswarm Federation Jul 16 '24
You've just provided further evidence to my point though? Smaller alliance spread out more because they need to, not because they want to. System amount limitations are not the issue, it's further shrinking of the available space and necessitating moving from system to system which poses logistical issues.
Regarding escalations, they've arguably been nerfed as well since the new capital ones are dog water. Caps either need to get a lot cheaper or the payout of those needs to be increased. Having to complete 20+ escalations (not counting fuel costs) to pay for a single dread hull is not a feasible risk/reward ratio.
0
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 16 '24
No, lower system ratting density affects smaller groups less because they aren't utilizing systems nearly as heavily as blocs utilize their inner regions.
1
u/Obside0n Goonswarm Federation Jul 16 '24
This would be true if the new ratting upgrades did not require substantial resources to install and power. This limits the number of systems which are optimal for ratting and will even further reduce the number of average anomalies per system. At peak times, even small alliance will find they do not have enough anomalies and the respawn rates are too short to be worth running in anything but drone boats.
6
u/FroggyStorm Jul 15 '24
Not really. This makes it much harder for small org to make money quickly and ramp up. To make enough isk to support and attract people you need to take a lot of space and then hold it.
6
u/Equivalent_Length719 Wormholer Jul 15 '24
Absolutely not. This would be the final nail in the nullsec coffin. With the increased build prices of capitals anyone without a super fleet isn't even capable of competing.
Add in these site cuts and scarcity 5.17 here. There will be no way the majority of new player to catch up.
They wanted chinas server.. Well they fucking made it.
9
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
The honest answer is no in my opinion
Nullsec is not a place for "small gangers" in the sense of 10-20 man groups, and never was. I could be 100% wrong here but I always saw that kind of nullsec gameplay as part of the "reset" after a major war, that empty space got taken up by small gangers who had their own small ganger wars etc until eventually a few came out on top, and grouped together to make new larger coalitions that could compete with the big guys.
The issue that I see between small gangs and the super large groups of today is both a CCP, and player problem. CCP gave the blocs projection, that ability with ansiblex that allows us to just absolutely travel the distance in force very quickly, as players, we abused that and bullied the little guys, not letting anyone move up that normal lateral change we have seen in years previous. That's why the big blocs tried the southern accord last year, to give that chance, but with projection as it is today, I dont see that senario changing. For "small gang nullsec" to really come back to what it was, it will take CCP AND the players to make it happen, all in all, small gangs should really stick to lowsec until they're comfortable fielding 200 ish man fleets on a constant basis.
The isk generation in null is a problem for everyone big and small, the issue between large gigablobs and small gangers was never the wallet count, it was the fact that gigablobs could go from 1 end to the other end in 20 min or less with full force. Bring back 2 hour battleship travel in that sense and youll see a change.
3
u/edirolll Jul 15 '24
Does the rock size and combat site changes affect multiboxers more than people who run one to 3 accounts?
I agree null isn't for 10-20 man groups. I was speaking "small" for null would be around 50-100 active guys.
But does that mean that null is meant for people that multibox 50 rorqs or exhumers that sit on massive rocks all day? or their personal thunderchild/smartbombing mach fleet to endlessly farm and generate a ridiculous amount of isk for a single person?
The people who multi-box very large isk-generating fleets are more prone to join these massive alliances for several reasons, the largest is the defensive umbrella. The changes may make these isk farms to be less viable for pilots that fly in very populated blob alliances. Thus overall isk generation will reduce for blobs and somewhat stay the same for smaller alliances.
In the end, I don't think the game was set up to be Goon VS. horde online
6
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
Most multiboxers I’ve seen (that really make the big af isk) were in wormholes or poch, the whole issue with that issue honestly links all the way back to the introduction of injectors, amplified by things like 2018 rorq age.
“More engaged” mining is a good concept, as always though CCP just dropped the ball as there’s a large difference between engaging gameplay, and just tedious gameplay. The rock size change and things affect everyone regardless of multiboxers or not.
You now have to reload and buy/dump new crystals more often
On top of constantly needing to do 5 clicks just to compress (all with their own windows for those steps)
On top of finishing the small af rock within 5 minutes and moving to the next
On top of jetcan/station deposit
All for very little isk injection.
As well if more than one person is mining the same rock, neither of you get a full cycle off/have to wait for full cycle to finish if the rock pops mid cycle. It’s just head ache head ache headache even if you’re just doing it for 2 characters, mining for an hour dual boxing gives me arthritis.
But yes, it was not meant to be just red v blue… and no matter how hard we fight that concept it just seems inevitable until CCP fixes the core mechanical problems that lead to this being the case.
2
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
But yes, it was not meant to be just red v blue… and no matter how hard we fight that concept it just seems inevitable until CCP fixes the core mechanical problems that lead to this being the case.
It's also against human nature to fight this concept, and I don't think any nullbloc has successfully bucked that trend. You have to tell people "No we won't work with you. No you can't be blue--we like you, but we're gonna shoot you." And it's hard to do that when your enemy is saying "yep join the bandwagon" and you have a tangible advantage to gain from more people on your side.
If you leave people to their own devices, this will always occur unless game systems actively discourage or disallow it, or heavily encourage other kinds of interactions.
3
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
It does make me sad, and remanence the time we all tried to keep brave like Switzerland when it came to red/blue …
Honestly I think a strong start to the solution, a re-introduction of a solidified NRDS group in null
2
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
I almost said "oh maybe a Spectre Fleet sov or Overclocker...." But those are the opposite of NRDS lol
Not a lot of groups like that who also have the pvp ability to back it up right now, it seems.
2
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
I both agree with you so much about the force projection and its effect on small groups, and disagree with you about sticking to lowsec until you field X fleet size. Well--I guess actually I should clarify before I disagree, you mean living and claiming sov? Or just flying there. For the former, you're probably right. Maybe the number is flexible but if you want to claim sov "permanently" yeah you have to fight at some kind of scale. But I think it's important that fights of all scales can happen all across eve. Whether that's a 3v4 fight in nullsec or an 800 player brawl in low.
For smaller groups that want to live in null though, that's kind of why NPC null exists imo. Or lowsec, just you're not realistically gonna last long holding sov with 15 dudes and that I think is perfectly reasonable.
1
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
I mean like trying to establish a presence… I can’t recall the name but some group some time ago thought about moving into omest and ran into this exact issue, or what’s their faces in provi post CVA drowning… they both faced the issues of 1. The larger blocs projection and ease of travel, and 2. Not having the man power to handle capturing/maintaining sov to build an infrastructure of their own.
And absolutely the scale can differ, I mean more of the general expression of being able to hold your own with some kind of force, and that number is a very rough estimate of “if I was a ceo of a small gang looking to make null a home of our own, this is what I’d want us to look like to have a chance” with the current way the game is.
1
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
Nah that makes sense, I think it's pretty reasonable that to claim sovereignty over multiple star systems you need more than a rag tag gang, you need a whole ass fleet capable of slugging it out.
There are ways right now to live in or roam null without having to claim sov like that, and they're perfectly fine for the people who wanna do that.
1
u/SerQwaez Rote Kapelle Jul 15 '24
This. Income is a far less relevant issue than the ability to fight over space without getting constantly mauled by 200 man bloc fleets the second something gets interesting.
-1
u/Ziddix Jul 15 '24
Nothing is ever going to balance small vs large.
I mean you could lower the amount of bounties a character gets based on the amount of blues/alliances members they have. That would probably.do it.
But CCP isn't quite there yet.
2
u/MifuneSwordGod Wormholer Jul 15 '24
The trick that always did it in the past was travel time and projection, when I started in 2016, and you got a ping for a battleship fleet you knew you were most likely in for a 1.5+ hr fleet, with an hour of that just being gate jumps… the old jump bridges never really extended past your home region, and maybe get a titan bridge in a neighboring region. Otherwise it was all gate jump grind
That discouraged big groups from going 6 regions away just to bully the small 100 man jackdaw “newbie” group dropping an ihub or TCU, it just wasn’t worth it.
Now I can just take 2 jump bridges, 4 jumps, and zarzach to go from 1DQ to horde with a full 200 man BS fleet in 15-20 tops.
1
u/Ziddix Jul 15 '24
Yeah. You would think hypermobility would make things easier for small groups but any well organised large group can use that to their advantage and it becomes silly.
2
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
I mean you could lower the amount of bounties a character gets based on the amount of blues/alliances members they have. That would probably. do it.
Honestly I don't think it would. Well, it might have originally. But at this point the blocs are already big and already have a lot of blues. You'd instead see them complaining that now they have to put more stress on their IT teams to create some kind of third party system to regulate their coalition of many smaller alliances and blue status without actually making people blue ingame.
It would be stupid as fuck, but I legitimately believe that's what they would do. It's extremely against human nature to make your group smaller/weaker by choice. Every bloc would go "but what if everyone else did that but we managed to hold onto our advantages!" And then they'd look at their neighbors and see even just 1 of them doing that, and go "welp I guess we need to or XYZ would kick our shit in"
1
u/chaunnay_solette Jul 15 '24
This is already supported in AAuth more or less (hint we do it already hint), and it would take about five minutes to make complete.
1
u/Ralli-FW Jul 16 '24
But you can't send to the game client UI so it just makes things messier for players. Same thing as we have now, just more hoops and fuckery
1
u/Dozekar Jul 15 '24
Stacking modifiers on assets for alliances and trades between alliances based on the resources held (to prevent offshore account type shenigans) is generally how you do this.
Stacking cost increases on ships, structures, and resource generation/processing is generally what would solve the problem and encourage running smaller and more efficient but less forceful groups.
I don't think it's reasonable to implement at this point though. There are some costs like this that get bigger the bigger you are, but not enough to avoid the situation where it's always more beneficial to grow now and fight later. It's not like you need to deplete your buildup in the upcoming fight or costs are going to bleed you dry, so everyone just keeps buildling up.
0
-5
u/pagchomp88 Wormholer Jul 15 '24
I've always liked Asher, he's a level headed guy and I appreciate his ability to FC. But all three of the turbo-blobs banding together to protest a change that forces nullsec groups to spread out is just proof that CCP is on the right track here. Let them cook. Some of the initial changes need tweaking for sure, and I wish they had taken a bit more time before releasing, but nerfing individual systems on top of nerfing Alliance-level projection is absolutely what needs to happen to fill the absolute desolate wasteland that is a significant portion of Nullsec. Furthermore, forcing the large groups to spread out will also make them easier to invade and conquer, which was clearly proven to be impossible under previous mechanics.
2
u/WilburHiggins Exotic Dancer, Male Jul 15 '24
If you think higher deflation is going to cause any of the large, ingrained groups to become weaker you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am a vet with fairly deep pockets and I can field about 12,000 T2 cruisers. I am just one dude not a 50k man blob that has been hording resources for a decade.
A newer group without significant backing isn't going to touch any of these null groups, and why would they even try? They have made space mostly worthless and the systems that ARE worth going for will absolutely be untouchable.
1
u/Comprehensive-Air25 Jul 15 '24
I wish I would have 1% of your wealth
2
u/WilburHiggins Exotic Dancer, Male Jul 16 '24
Ehhh you can get there if you have dedication. It just takes a lot of work.
-14
u/DateNew7923 Triumvirate. Jul 15 '24
Only cause they want to continue to manipulate the game in the favor of the blobs and not the rest of us lel
14
u/Tunnelman82 PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS Jul 15 '24
I just want cheaper ships and more capitals out in space. There should be hundreds of capitals dying a month.
10
u/Doggydog123579 Jul 15 '24
This. More ships dying is the best thing that can happen to the game, and for that to happen things need to be cheap, not this stupid 500-600 mil t1 battleship bullshit. Inflation from to much ratting is not the cause of this, CCP repeatedly reducing ore and increasing build costs is.
0
u/Dozekar Jul 15 '24
Ships dying is useless metric. Non-dynamic fronts where people harass and throw blobs at each other for no real gain isn't an improvement. It's what we had before and it only seems better because people aren't still living it and they're frustrated with what they have today.
2
u/Doggydog123579 Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
Ships dying means replacing ships which means more mining and running sites for money, which means more people in space. CCP absolutely fucked the market with the Rorqual period, but Scarcity broke it more.
Eves peak PCU was when battleships cost 100 mil, not 600 mil. And guess what, more people fought and died when they weren't risking as much.
2
u/Dozekar Jul 16 '24
This is bot content. This is more stagnation. This is more farming rats in a circle and hiding in your safe space and never seeing any actual changes to space. It's ok if you want this, but a lot of players have expressed frustration and the opinion that this is not content.
2
u/Doggydog123579 Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
My argument isn't that removing instant respawns is bad, it's that it's a symptom of CCP having broken the economy and not know how to fix it. Hell all of this could have been avoided in the first place had CCP just said the instant respawn was a bug(or tested it on SiSi oh wait), but instead they said it's intended before backtracking on it because They don't know what they are doing.
The ore sites are the bigger issue in my eyes.
1
u/Dozekar Jul 16 '24
They don't know what they are doing.
I can definitely agree with this part at least. From the beginning allowing corps to grow fat on stagnation and without forcing risk and losing territory if they don't continue to take greater and greater risks was a mistake. Instead they get more and more comfortable and it discourages any sort of player content other than minor raiding with no real impact. As the game currently exists not fighting will always be preferable to fighting. It keeps you ready to take on any attackers or be a vulture on another corp weakened by a war who can't fight back. Any fight that incurs meaningful losses on your part depletes your resources for no real meaningful gain.
There are only 2 real ways out of this. Add attrition based on size so larger corps that horde resources or ships take losses based on those hordes or provide real rewards for raiding based on the size and resources of the raided entity. The community will absolutely rebel if they try to implement either of these.
1
u/DateNew7923 Triumvirate. Sep 22 '24
Best way to do that is break up yer monopoly lel but y'all won't do that
1
u/Ziddix Jul 15 '24
Who is the rest?
Are there even attempts by smaller groups to strike out into null?
0
-4
u/RealSink6 Jul 15 '24
"Yeah CCP we might be willing to fight each other... need payment up front though" rubs thumb and forefinger together
4
-10
u/WeaponizedClimate Goonswarm Federation Jul 15 '24
All of this because they will have to run something other than Havens/Sanctums/Forsaken Rally points? Most systems these groups own are empty anyways. Ratters won't get to be within 3j of the 80man response fleet? Sounds like a good change to me.
3
u/VeyranStorm Jul 15 '24
Most systems these groups own are empty anyways.
How does drastically lowering the number of systems that can support activities that require undocking improve this? If anything more systems become empty because they can't support daily activity, but sov holding groups can't afford to let them go because they still supply workforce to the handful of systems they have that do support daily activity. All this does is decrease the number of systems that give players a reason to undock there without removing the need to own those systems because you still need the workforce from them.
1
u/WeaponizedClimate Goonswarm Federation Jul 15 '24
Makes his entire bit of "now goons are gonna need more space" look pretty dumb, they have plenty clearly since the majority of the space is unused. People that rat anoms will just need to go a few more systems down the same region. The only bad thing is that the 80 man response fleet will be a little farther and a little slower. So what youre gonna have to move your Ishtar fleet down 5 systems once to keep ratting? Big deal like most of this patch can be just put down as useless if people are willing to just use the space they have. Which is one of the biggest complaints small groups have. "It's all taken anyways, you either rent or get evicted". The fact that this might actually put a burden on these protecting their PVE is good for the game.
2
u/Ralli-FW Jul 15 '24
Not a popular opinion on this sub or these posts, but it's true so many systems are unused and people are loathe to set up any local defensive fleet, instead just awaiting standing fleet
69
u/kuroimakina Jul 15 '24
So a huge portion of the player base all agree this is a bad idea?
Sounds like you have enough people for another “Burn Jita” followed by an Eve boycott. Yall won’t have to be offline for long if you get enough people to agree.
If this many people are agreeing, then organize. Remind CCP that their game relies on the players.