Yes it is bad. It is counter-intuitive to everything they claim to stand for which is destruction and more destruction.
More blues = less conflict. At the very least corp membership needs to be limited again and there should only be a limited amount of entities a corp/alliance can set to blue/light blue.
We need some players with balls to hit that ‘Dissolve Corp/Alliance’ button. do something you worthless tools.
Are you volunteering?
And human nature pretty says that isn’t going to happen. Safety in numbers and having more minds chewing on a problem naturally makes large groups stronger and more resilient than small nomadic raiding parties.
Nature’s way of punishing dense concentrations is pathogens and resource depletion. Endless fields of anomalies pretty much removes one and no space plague existing removes the other existential threat. And if resources are limited the bigger entities zerging down smaller ones to locust fleet anything they need is going to hammer small fry to destruction or joining the blob.
Unless NPC space pirates have unlimited power to endlessly 23/7 throw at any entity with over X resources you aren’t going to get an artificial glass ceiling… and if you do put that sort of thing in the game you just end up with people meta-gaming around the artificial constraint.
The best way of getting things to blow up is put in a whole ton of restraints on new stuff that people will want… and then place in such a way that a great many can enter/exit but it is impossible to lay a solid claim. Imagine if Trig space had a underground highway setup over several regions and storms destroy any fleets that overstay. You have to get in, scan for currently available content, get it, and get out with the loot intact against those also trying to get the goods… and may find ganking for it easier than doing the sites. Fleet size caps, ship size caps, etc. Hell gate camping the edge of a sector about to go under storm and seeing what you get as people flee would also be a thing.
The details will vary as people think up better mechanics, but I think this is definitely the direction EVE has to go if it is to move beyond stagnation.
Limited engagements for specific resource/objective needs, with potential for conflict and no way to perma-lock the resource or anomaly.
EVE already has a variety of mechanics for limiting access to an objective - acceleration gate ship limits, items in cargo, wormhole mass/time limitations, account/alpha/omega status, whatever.
CCP needs to take things like Resource Wars code, co-op Abyss code, WH code and cobble together limited-access objectives that mean players need to be constantly checking for a potential access node, quickly get together a fleet, jump in and duke it out with whoever else shows up while busily harvesting whatever the resource is.
This galaxy-wide game of “I only engage in fights that are sure wins, otherwise I run away or hide” has been boring for far too long. Time to toss in some features that make fighting for them necessary.
Docking up and avoiding a fight should allow the interlopers to disable structure services which take hours to self-repair, denying the use of market, clone bay, tethering, repair services, use of POCOs etcetc.
Empty system? Or just don’t want to bother defending your turf? Trolled to uselessness for hours at a time by bored griefers.
I can certainly see how some mechanics of “if you hide it’s gonna cost you” would lead to less dock-and-wait til the scary things go away behaviour.
However given CCP’s apparent inability to fine-tune / finesse the things they add to the game for appropriate results, I can see this being widely used by griefers to harass/intimidate every weaker entity they can find.
(EVE has been advertising itself as nirvana for griefers for years - we’ve no shortage of them.)
The other issue I can see is that for any entity that isn’t weak/allied, they would simply dock, grab their PvP gear, holler for some backup, and head out against the interlopers. So in most cases it would devolve to either asymmetric griefing (strong vs. weak) or simply a game of hide and seek where interloper comes in, everybody docks and the fighters come back out, interloper runs away - repeat until everyone complains that CCP ‘did it again’.
I think the concept has merit but it would need to be designed in a more nuanced fashion than CCP’s usual if it is to have any benefit.
Yes, that’s the point of EVE. If you can’t defend it you don’t deserve it.
I believe mega alliances and coalitions are bad for Eve. I say that as an active member of Test with 3 rorq accounts, a titan/dread account, fax account and super carrier account and various subcap pvp chars. I long for the large scale battles like BR5, UALX and so on, but the blue donut means they just don’t happen anymore…
As much as a lot of the high sec carebears in this thread like to pretend otherwise, null players in my experience are some of the most experienced pvp’ers to the point where they’re bored of subcap pvp. I’ve been doing it for years, but after a while you lose the pvp shakes that made it compelling and you just find yourself wanting to pvp in larger and larger ■■■■ to get that feeling back. I would say most mega alliance members are desperate for the next big fight to risk their expensive toys, until then who wants to roam in a blinking HAC, t3c, strat etc when you’ve done it many times before.
Null needs something to fight over, im pretty sure we’d unfuck ourselves quickly if there were a series of massive battles where trillions of assets were wiped out at a time (economy would be helped). For me, I think you need to link some massive rewards to regions of space so that null blocks are forced to fight over them and cannot rely on a single area. You need to do that in a way that Goons/Test won’t just stomp it through larger numbers, maybe limit the max number of participants in a system per alliance to 1000 or something so fights are always even.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.