When skyhooks got introduced, it did look like sov would change to actually needing people to defend the space and resources.
Now it got nerfed for 50% in output, plus a vulnerability timer.
So who benefits? Right, the big groups with more space then they should actually have.
Boo!
4 Likes
Disappointed yet not surprised.
3 Likes
Because being able to cyno 10 blops on what have you on the raiders wasn’t enough advantage, seems fair. Frankly don’t see the point in trying to engage with this content anymore.
4 Likes
So, we are only allowed to have a certain amount of space, are we? That sounds like people who complain about others having “more money than they should be allowed to have”. EVE is about sociopathic capitalism, not “equality”. You want what they have? Think they own too much space? Then get a group together and take it by force…
5 Likes
People would, but the current game mechanics simply don’t allow it. The big blocs are like a Roman Empire of the past, just without the need to even secure borders, as they can simply teleport all their armies left and right within a single day, often within hours - and back the same day. They can easily burn out anyone who even dares to settle within a self-proclaimed area - an area they could never develop or fill with people actually living there. All that without leaving other fronts open for attackers or even planning and executing an intensive deployment campaign. They can simply have their whole army sitting in Rome all day long, being ready to jump on Karthago on Monday for lunch, crossing the Alps and hit the German Tribes in the evening and be back for rest at the same day. Ah, and conquering the Celts too, should they dare to move.
Thats why force projection (especially instant one via Cynos, Ansiblex and Bridges) need to be cut down harshly. Best, completely removed for the most part. If Geography means something again and Distance creates safety from being blobbed by the next best big empire that is simply so bored from having only (mainly forced) blues around them - then, and only then, “empires” in EVE will begin to shrink again, blocks falling apart and areas becoming open for settlement, because it simply is too much effort to just burn them down for the lulz if you would bind huge forces for days and weeks there - forces that would be unable to make an emergency-return on the same day.
5 Likes
That’s where I stopped reading.
Mr Epeen 
They can’t be everywhere at once. Aks yourself, how did the large blocs get the space they currently have? Now, once you’ve answered that question, ask yourself why you can’t do the same? It’s a numbers game, simple as that. Bring more numbers than they have, and they will fold. The problem is that none of the smaller alliances will work together towards that goal. They are too worried about what they want to be able to have as their own.
To give a real-world example, the population of the United States is 340 million. There are about 4 million truck drivers. Those 4 million truck drivers could bring the entire country to its knees overnight if they so choose. They only have to get together and decide to do so as a group…
3 Likes
Should have finished 5th grade then. Don’t know what else to tell you… 
2 Likes
The 50% secure container is really, really bad.
So now, at maximum, you can disrupt 50% of a single skyhook in a certain window of time. There are hundreds of skyhooks. Talk about catering to the null blocs man.
Typical reductionist argument.
The point is you should have to defend your space. Now, you simply don’t, again. So flood plains for days, ansiblex all over the place still, no interdiction of fleet movements at key gates possible, everyone still lives in staging under their perfect little supercap umbrella ratting in complete safety… etc etc etc.
They’ve basically walked back the entire concept of the skyhook and strategic raiding in favor of massive null blocs.
2 Likes
No they are worried to lose their enjoyment of the game. Big Alliance gameplay is for many people a cancer they want to avoid for how bad it is. They don’t want TiDi battles and 100+ man fleets where the individual pilot counts for nothing. They don’t want engagements where the “experience” is activating weapons as fast as you can on a called primary and see it pop in a second, or seeing yourself going from full to pod in another second. They don’t want to experience voicecomms where they don’t know anybody or a space full of restrictions, rules and ratting-bots that the upper class gladly tolerates for the taxes they bring in.
I am glad EVE offers that kind of gameplay for those who do like it, but EVE also should remember basic principles of balance, which means: the more powerful fleets should also be less mobile. They should have LESS paths available to them, instead of easier and more. They should need LONGER to reach any destination, require MORE effort and HUGE COST to move around. Large forces should need to travel, mainly gate-by-gate, so they can be spotted, reported, ambushed, blocked. That is tactical and strategical gameplay. “Cyno up, Jump Jump” isn’t.
EVE should have it’s corner for big alliances, but the whole playground always needs to remain big enough that medium and smaller entities can have their little remote corners where they are hard to reach and not burned out “because you can and it’s actually effort- and riskless”. I mean, you realize why Lowsec is practially a dead wasteland except for the FW zones? Yeah, you do. People can’t do ■■■■without being hotdropped all day long by the usual groups who can always outescalate any defense attempt. That was different a decade ago and it’s a shame.
Instatravel has to be nerfed, greatly. Else we will never ever experience a healty gameplay again, at least not in K-Space.
6 Likes
Yes, you should. But would you like to know why they don’t have to? Because the smaller alliances never gather up in numbers large enough to warrant a response…
If everyone had that mentality, then no battle would ever be won…
Because they are… smaller… alliances…
lol
Because they don’t…wait for it…group together.
All the suggestions I’m seeing from these posts are bonuses for the little guys, penalties for the big guys. Well, it doesn’t work like that. And as long as you stay in your separate little alliances, doing your own thing, and don’t join together, the status quo will remain…
Quake your bait is bad and if isn’t bait then I’m sorry for your parents.
-
No one is asking for a hard cap on owned space. Your claim that any dislike for nullbloc gameplay is envy is silly. Any of us could join a nullbloc and whack off in station all day clearly that’s not what we want.
-
The point of equinox was to introduce choices for the nullblocs. Do they attempt to hold onto all of the space they currently own and get harassed more? Do they consolidate down to a more defensible position utilizing the few systems they can put jump bridges in? CCP then killed this because it was a bridge too far for the nullblocs. Now they can have all the upgrades and bridges and other nonsense they want never being forced to commit forces from one side of their space to another.
Skyhooks were the last figment of Equinox. It allowed for hit and run attacks on a larger group. This is a strategy that partially offsets the overwhelming numbers of the nullblocs. This is not a bonus, this is not an advantage, this is simply forcing a reaction against a smaller response force. When you place so many guardrails and force all fights over anything of strategic value to be knockdown drag out fights you get consolidated group gameplay as the only option. So yes within the confines of this update the answer to your dog poo style of game play is to become the same as you. That is what we take issue with. If a bloc wants space make them live in all of it if they’re going to defend it all.
Tl;Dr response forces should be local, if you want a big fight you have structure timers.
2 Likes
In an MMO. Imagine that…
Yeah and cities are full of smog, crack dens are full of drug addicts, pig stye’s are full of pig ■■■■. The truth of those statements do not make them positives. Would you Mr. Quake curse the farmer for cleaning the stye now and then.
Let’s say the large blocs did get out from under their “umbrella” and spread out and defend their individual systems, and you still couldn’t defeat them. What then? Would you petition CCP to change the rules in your favor so you could win or, at a minimum, compete?