@Arrendis To me the issue of conflict has still more to do with leadership (alliance and coalition level) being to cozy with each other and friendly with each other. And not be willing to put in the time and effort to destroy the opponent. Take for example the latest reported deal between WinterCo and Legacy. This is at least the 2nd time that Legacy is not getting the job done and destroying WinterCo…So in a way, it could be said that respective alliance or coalition leadership got so comfortable in their cocoon that leadership lost the will to fight a true war of annihilation.
CSM job is to speak for the players and if that involves constantly pounding the table and/or pointing at priorities, then that is what is to be done. And CSM job is absolutely not to play magician because of whatever feelings one might have regarding a section of the game.
You are just a broken record constantly repeating “pound the table”.
2 Likes
Yea, well, when they actually start doing that, then will change to something else.
You sound like your 5. Whining until you get what you want, well guess what that is going to get you. Absolutley nothing.
2 Likes
One thing to bear in mind with this: Some leverage is very much a ‘use it once, and you can’t use it again.’ and some is ‘Use it once, and then you may as well resign, as no-one will talk to you after that.’
We have cards to play, but sometimes you have to hold them for the right moment.
1 Like
It warms my soulless heart that complete game breakdown isn’t the right moment.
1 Like
After this debacle, I would say CSM has more than enough ammunition to keep CCP accountable for years to come
Well, not to be too pointed about it… but you’re wrong. If Vily had a reasonable path to annihilating FRT, he’d take it. But with FRT’s withdrawal (like NCdot’s in June) to rear-echelon regions farther from Legacy’s space, chasing after them would mean extending his lines too far. He can’t push forward with enough strength to secure the front multiple regions away from Legacy’s farms and fields without leaving those economic centers undefended and vulnerable. And he’s not dumb enough to try. This isn’t about ‘getting the job done’, it’s about doing his job and seeing to the needs of the people who invest their time and effort into following his lead.
The problem you’re seeing isn’t that coalition leaders ‘get comfortable’, it’s that coalition leaders have more responsibilities than just ‘make stuff blow up so some mouthbreathers will be happy about the sinks’. The leadership of large alliances has a responsibility first to our members. Our job is to serve their needs, over the long term. And while in the short run, a massive war of utter annihilation might feel good and be fun, and arguably might[1] be good for the game… in the long run, as things are, it just screws over our guys:
The people we lead have trusted us with their time, their efforts, and their patience. I’m sorry that you think us not screwing them over is ‘being too cozy with’ our enemies, but the real math in that situation isn’t about our enemies, it’s about our responsibilities to our people.
If it’s a moment where CCP won’t listen, and when pushing them will just ensure they don’t listen at any point in the future, then no, it’s not the right moment. It’s precisely the wrong moment, because it would destroy any chance of actually fixing things.
You’d be wrong. It has nothing to do with ‘ammunition’. The CSM has no ammunition. The CSM can’t force anything, and they can’t freaking blackmail CCP over ‘remember how dumb you were? You want that to come out?’ The CSM only has the leverage CCP gives them, and CCP is full of people. You act like a dick to people at the moment when they’re worried, unsure, and most importantly defensive about what they’re doing, you’re just gonna harden that defense and push them right into full-on resentment.
And that helps precisely nobody.
1 Like
Congratulations. This is, without a doubt, the single stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums.
Thanks for your goon assessment, it tells me that my proposal is on the right track. 
I don’t see anything wrong with the supercapitals, I mean the ships have no problems.
Forcing people to undock them is a battlefield scenario. If that scenario is non-existent, there is no reason to undock.
Our armadas are parked and ready to go. What we choose to undock is irrelevant from the hull’s POV but in direct proportion to the proposed battlefield scenario.
The problem that needs a solution is to raise expenditure or destruction which again, has nothing to do with the hull. It doesn’t matter if a frigate or a titan, as long as things pop.
From this perspective, it is useless to change the hulls, buy them back, replace, etc. The lack of conflict remains and it is product the current SOV mechanics and some say the size of a few entities.
CCP is confronted with 2 options:
-
Fix the issues piece by piece, a hull here, some modules there, cynos, cloaks, and so on.
-
Fix the environment in which everything takes place “a-la-blackout”.
To me, here is where lays the value of the BO: It’s a tool.
Absence of local is a WH feature, forced to Null in a “single” move but there are other environmental attributes that belong to WH space and other instances:
- Mass limited Jump Gates. In total load for WH’s and in individual load or hull type for Missions gates.
- Hull attribute mods: Some WH buff or nerf specific attributes. It can be pretty much anything.
There are more.
I believe that what CCP did with the black summer is a prelude to how EVE development will run from now on.
The good thing about it is that it is easier to code.
The bad is that it is brain surgery, a single mistake can repeat the black summer or worse.
Such changes don’t have to be so dramatic, we don’t need a quake or a lava river. They could bring some rain or just start with a cloudy weekend, minor things, small steps to begin with.
I understand the segmented proposals and although they do work, takes ages to execute and demands manpower while fixing just a part or a few of the whole at a time.
But CCP is not gonna do that, period. Thas approach will still go but only when strictly necessary.
And we just witnessed a test that could never be applied on sisi. It had to go live and they measured our reaction. This are the things to come.
So, I truly recommend to focus on the environment and forget the ships. The ships are perfect, everything is, including structures.
The proliferation and all related excess is a question of the field and it’s load bearing capacity in every aspect, things that can be altered for the whole, and they will.
Let’s try to make sure they don’t fail again.
If no NDA blocks, CSM could possibly confirm.
Yeah have similar situations with my 6year old,best of luck i guess.
Well, it’s not. And I’m someone who wants all supers completely removed from the game. What you’re suggesting just tells people ‘stop playing, working to get something means getting shafted’. As @Olmeca_Gold, @Brisc_Rubal, @Dunk_Dinkle, and @Steve_Ronuken can all tell you: if you want to nuke supers, you have to do it in a way that gives people a feeling that their years of playing and working toward getting them weren’t a complete waste.
And your ‘one bomb’ nonsense not only doesn’t achieve that, it not only tells the people who have supers ‘no, really, screw you and all the time and effort you’ve put into this game’, it tells people who don’t have supers ‘whatever it is you’re working toward? Yeah, screw you, we’ll take that away from you in an arbitrary and stupid way, too’.
At that point, it might as well be ‘EVE: Deathmatch’, where everyone gets a free ship, infinite respawns, and the whole thing’s just one big battle royale that resets every 30 minutes, because actually trying to progress toward a goal is a sucker’s bet.
1 Like
You didn’t get the point (the bomber thing was just an example). People should have their super, and do what they want with them, BUT the price is, there is time and duty to sacrifice it for the group. Maybe being the lucky hero to survive the stand.
BTW, supers are no personal achievement. They can’t be build without the group, they have to be given back to the group.
I absolutely got the point. I even had a whole other set of thoughts about the point. The bomber thing, though, as ‘just an example’, was so stupid that I literally could not bring myself to even address your larger point, because your example showed your line of thinking to be that ill-conceived. Because you can try to explain it all away with ‘it was just an example’, but the thing about examples is… they have to actually be examples. They’ve got to be something that viably illustrates the thing you’re trying to use them as an example of.
It’s like if I said 'You know, we need a way to get from one place to another faster. For example, we could jump really high and wait until the Earth turns beneath us to where we want to go, and land then!
That’d be a pretty damned stupid example, wouldn’t it? Not only would it be an incredibly boneheaded way to get someplace, it wouldn’t actually get anyone anywhere faster than we can do already. So it just wouldn’t be a viable example.
Never said they were though, did I? What I said was that they’re something people work toward.
With all that said, though, let’s look at your ‘point’:
‘New gameplay everyone wants to play’. Yeah, ok, congratulations, you’ve just said ‘what we need is literally the golden goose everyone at CCP’s been feverishly trying to dream up since about the time EVE was conceived of’. New gameplay everyone wants to play? It’s the freaking holy grail of any extant MMO. It’s how you keep people playing, get new people in, gives you a whole new marketing direction. Holy crap, you might as well have said ‘you know what we need? Air, so we don’t suffocate’.
‘which requires to expose supercaps with lots of supercaps dying, either from PvE or PvP’. Well, if you don’t address the fundamental problem—that groups can’t afford to have lots of supercaps dying—then no matter how much people want to play that ‘new gameplay’ you’ve conjured out of your arse, they don’t need to play it, and so they won’t.
And now you’re just introducing penalties that don’t actually offer anything. ‘Hey, pay more to stay exactly where you are!’ doesn’t tend to go over well. If you want to change peoples’ behavior, you have to give them a reason to want to change, and remove the obstacles to change. This idea does neither.
Instead, it starts from the premise of ‘blow supers up somehow, because that’s good’, and then ignores the fact that you need to keep people playing the game when you take their crap away. This is a voluntary activity. You have to make your customers want to spend their irreplaceable time on it. Or they won’t.
Nope, you didn’t get the point. You still approach that from the individual’s perspective. Supers should be a group asset, that’s the mind shift the idea shall achieve. The personal achievement is the trust of the group allowing you to fly a super.
Also the the bomber example is an actual example, how to make supers actually die in quantity, maybe complemented by a “no cloak allowed” weather effect.
First off, I am looking at it from a group perspective: no group is going to risk assets they need to have in order to get at gameplay they want to do.
Second, you cannot separate the individual’s interests in this, because the group does not log in. The group doesn’t subscribe. The individual does. Group behaviors arise from individual behaviors, and individual behaviors in a voluntary activity can only be pushed so far toward collectivism without tangible, individual rewards.
Supercapitals as exclusively ‘group assets’ was where we were 7 years ago. Then we got more and more of them. It’s hard to argue something is only a ‘group asset’ when the goal for years has been ‘two titans in every hangar’, and there are actively people in the group who own half a dozen. Or more.
And the bomber example is still a phenomenally stupid one. Bombers are already disgustingly overpowered.
But this is the groups’ fault, not CCP’s. What stops them from buying back the supers and compensate the pilots, when they lose their ship? Isn’t it telling that your group members would potentially leave when the group ask them to sacrifice their assets?
I say make it so citadels doomsday one shots supers. It wont hurt smaller groups that only use subcaps since it already kills those.