Never said I know how this works. If I knew, I would be the one getting the big bucks and the jacuzzi time instead of @CCP_Hellmar and co…What I am saying however is that it is CCP job to figure a solution and spend the necessary time and money to fix this.
To me, the only way CCP would achieve this is by supporting the growth of small entities, maybe even putting a cap on corporations allowed in an alliance. But for sure by supporting smaller entities. Until now all they have done, and that is since the BO debacle, is encourage big entities to get even bigger.
2 Likes
It is not possible to fight on a keepstar when enough people shows up.
If so the keepstar can’t be destroyed
Than the only conclusion is that the game mechanic is not working properly.
Back to the drawing table, CCP
5 Likes
Fair enough, but yea the solution would be to make grouping up in one system not worth players time and energy and having smaller skirmishes have much bigger rewards or be more fun in general.
They might need to nerf keepstar’s strength imo, but not 100% sure as I don’t have much knowledge of citadels.
1 Like
which counts for nothing when you can organise yourselves using non-ccp tools, like forums and discord etc.
CCP forcefully controling limits is not going to work sure, but by changing the environment to make it worse strategically to be too big might be the way.
Some type of design to encourage in-fighting between coalitions and to encourage greed where core players of an alliance want control over some type of rich limited resources.
I agree with you, I honestly think CCP made living in 0.0 too easy. Traveling to deep 0.0 space used to be difficult and require coordination and teamwork, now its just a few jumps or bridges. Low sec is a complete waste of time almost, even newer players are safer in 0.0 due to how easy it is to move about, yeah you get the odd roaming gankers but if you are careful that shouldn’t be a problem. 0.0 was meant to be this scary place where the strongest built empires and fought amazing wars but instead its just filled with bots and other pet alliances farming away in space they pay for off huge alliances who can drop hundreds of titans on who they like.
For me they need to make living in 0.0 harder, they need to make people actually have to defend there space and they need to some how restrict how quickly these big alliances move around the map, but I cant see this ever happening and i can only see things carrying on how they were.
3 Likes
Back in the older day’s guerrilla warfare against bigger groups was highly effective, now a days guerrilla warfare is pretty much useless you have to out blob the blob or you wont even leave a dent.
3 Likes
I started off really angry yesterday morning that the last 2 Keep timers had been squarely in US TZ which, as a Euro, meant I was excluded… How incredibly relieved I am this morning waking up to this ■■■■!
Couldn’t agree more. Gorilla warfare used to be very effective when 0.0 alliances couldnt just jump or bridge past you. That meant if you camped a 0.0 entrance or roamed there space they would have to form and come and move you, this made smaller scale fights much more common. Nowadays if you enter hostile space they just drop whore dreads on you (I only found out about smaller guns on dreads after returning to game recently, who thought this was a good idea?) and a huge blob and they can do this from almost anywhere.
1 Like
CCP knew PAPI would whelp btw, they had a pop cap in effect meaning, with Goons having 5k in system, PAPI were doomed from the start. Interesting that CCP has never disclosed such pop caps until now… This massively incentivises superblob alliances, effectively if you can reach 5k members online concurrently, nobody can contest you!
1 Like
Players are unreliable in policing other players. Only NPCs like CONCORD can do such things. If null would be suddenly invaded by NPCs, that would be rather disruptive. It worked for high sec.
1 Like
Haw guns are absolutely terrible for balance, size vs tracking was a great way to balance eve but Haw just obliterates that balance, but its the same for RLML and RHML as well to a much smaller degree.
It’s more nuanced than that. If dreads cannot repel a subcap fleet, you lose a key component in the escalation process for massive battles to take place.
At the end of the day I sat on a game for 7 hours yesterday and did nothing due to the game performance - this is not fun for me and CCP should consider that.
4 Likes
Fair but in my opinion its more healthy to have a sub cap fleet escort cap’s the same way you need troops escorting trebuchet in something like age of empires.
If trebuchet could solo a small army in age of empires then all people would do is spam trebuchet and that is exactly how eve is going.
I have a funny feeling CCP is going to try move haw guns off of dreads and put them on maruaders and not allow them in high anymore. Not sure how I would feel about that thou as I have not done the math but it would for sure be better than it is now.
2 Likes
That’s an unsustainable strategy. If the path to victory was just to show up early and get blue balls, players would stop showing up.
But you’re right -it’s PAPI leadership that is retarded. I mean, how stupid do they have to be to try to get good fights for their members and win through actually playing the ■■■■■■■ game, instead of just trying to metagame server limitations. In fact, why play the game at all? You can’t lose any battles if you just unanchor all of your ■■■■ and stop logging in.
Just because someone logged in first, means that they are entitled to refuse their opponent from entering the system at all?
CSM we need you
As proposed many times before, remove 3rd party ESI access to not already public data would break up the big groups from within, or get them banned for IRL spying/hacking.
CCP must forcefully limit the effectiveness of big groups to max those of today‘s NPSI groups or lower, if this is not enough.
Solving the n+1 problem also has proposals, don’t simulate each single entity, but group things together as more enter the system.
1 Like