The Problem with the Plight of the Little Guy

Avatar
Nice article, gives a lot of dept in small alliances psychology.At some time tho i was about to offer wormholes to some of the theoretical protagonists you described.After all - if you want small alliances, free shooting and your own space - there is enough empty wormholes out there.But then again , there is added problems to solve too.That said - a lot of null sec entities would be damn happy to have a warlike opponents that are roaming the outskirts of the protected space and provide good fights.No one loves to shoot structures, players are funnier.
Avatar
The hard to achieve, but best, option is to simply make holding vast swaths of space less appealing/necessary for major blocks (yes, in a way that makes the blocks happy as well). As Bob Slydell from Office Space would put it, "the situation would work itself out naturally".We've already seen some groups of smaller alliances band together under a NIP for short periods of time in null, with some degree of success. That type of arrangement is inherently unstable though and when it falls the blocks usually sweep in to fill the void left behind. This is especially true in the South where extra space is necessary for payment from renters.
Avatar
The thing that shits all over people that bleat about this is that there -are- new alliances popping up in nullsec. They just make friends and get out there rather than whining about how they can't.
Avatar
Great article. I completely agree
Avatar
How odd that the largest alliances in the game require large blue lists accompanied with extensive NIP/NAP agreements, producing coalitions that control major tracts of sov null. I agree with Narlah's comment below: WH space is the place for smaller entities within the game. I suspect WHs and NPC null might be the focus of CCP's future development effort. Sov null will to remain a sidelined scrub land until the residents can produce content for themselves without having to go to Jita or gank frieghters/miners in hi sec or blame structure grind as an excuse to avoid war.
Avatar
small groups simply need to learn how to recruit.There is a reason behind High / Low and Null Sec . think about it
Avatar
If "all styles of play" are by definition valid then yes, there's nothing wrong with mega coalitions and the detractors just need to suck it up. It only becomes a problem when a vast majority of people find themselves locked into a style of play they find not fun, but nevertheless have to take part. Structure bashing is an example of this. People can do it and win wars with it, but the act itself is an eye gougingly bad time.It's debatable thought whether the rest of null gameplay has been brought to that level of unfun by coalition politics.
Avatar
As an alliance leader of an NPC 0,0 group that built up to the size of consistently fielding 30-40 man, tight-doctrine roam fleets, but was unable to make any inroads into sov or further expansion, I find this article a bit naive. Clearly it is not written by someone who has actually attempted something like this in a leadership position on their own.The truth is, once you get to that size in NPC 0,0 there are no very-small level income sources on an alliance level. Moons worth taking are taken, and renting is obviously not an option. As soon as you pass the threshold into strategic fighting rather than random roaming/camping you need an Alliance level income source in order to ask people to put their capitals on the line.That whole bit about teaming up with smaller like minded entities? I have actually done this several times. The issue is the second you field a 50-60 man fleet against any SOV alliance, they batphone their sea of blues and drop 5x the numbers on you. I don't really blame them though, they are probably just excited to not have something blue on the overview for a change.What would my fix be? Create small scale alliance level ISK objectives in NPC 0,0. Make them require you actually live in constellation with your NPC 0,0 alliance to control. Just gives us a few more stepping stones on the ISK side to work our way up to the level of the big guys.
Avatar
I know that many people on this site distains world of tanks, but bear with me here.World of tanks has a feature called Clan wars, where clans of players can organize and fight each other to take land on the global map, currently made of Europe, north africa, parts of the middle east, and north africa. Land holding clans get free gold, or premium currency just by holding territory, with better territories giving more gold. This is World of tank's analogue to Sov warfare.However, Clan wars does not suffer from the same High barrier of entry problem as 0.0, Small, inexperianced clans land in africa to do battle with other new clans, skirmishing with each other and learning/improving. Until they become good enough to land in the middle east, then europe/NA. The best clans fight over the best territory and don't bother these small clans, as once you have land, you can not land elsewhere.Further, clan sizes are capped at 100 people, but alliances do exist in an informal way, with clans woking together to reduce the number of borders that need to be guarded. Lastly, the number of people who can represent their clans in the battle for a territory is limited at 15.Of course, I'm not saying eve should Put such strict limitations on Alliances to give the small guy some room to play and grow. Rather, I'm saying that there are land conquering games where Organizations of every size and experiance have the place and chance to fight for a territory of their own.
Avatar
I think part of the problem is how easy it is to control all these big swaths of space. I mean when ancient rome swallowed up small states it was a large amount of effort to move their army. Today the entire map is under the sphere of influence of the major coalitions. It is to easy to project force across space. Light years mean almost nothing and an alliance can instantly respond to any threat.If a little guy did want to move in, any point where they just put up sov they would instantly be blobbed.
Avatar
Nerf jump drives (except on jump freighters and black ops). Their ya go hot drops are gone and supers won't be instantly dropped on your territory if your a noob alliance. Make supers and regular caps use stargates (except in low sec and NPC space). Suddenly it would be such a bitch to attack a small entity that it is better to leave them their and let them run around with small gangs and rat. If you try and take space from a entity that is part of a coalition it would be imposssible for them to just batphone in blues because for them to just get their would involve an op. Coalitions become obsolete and the doughnut crumblse
Avatar
Methinks that the suggested POS changes have you rattled, its a bottom up change that will change things hugely and your right to be worried, you would have to police your systems to stop people from ratting and running your CA's, you would actually have to defend you space boots on the ground style small PvP combat, of course your scared...
Avatar
I made a proposal on the F&I forum to force alliances to be more proactive when defending their space https://forums.eveonline.com/d...Take the moon harvesters out of the pos shield.
Avatar
The main reason I'm okay with NPC space, while some may disagree with me, is because it does let "the little guy," as you put it, into null sec. A lot of people seem to forget that. Sure it's not sov space, but it does have it's advantages from both a pvp and pre point of view.While I am one who feels the sov system could use some love, I agree with you that the bigger alliances shouldn't be gimped so the "little guy" can get sov. And for the record, I am not in a sov holding alliance.
Avatar
It isn't very good space to live in. Really your better off farming level 4's in high sec.
Avatar
Conveniently, "small scale isk objectives" (I'd been thinking in sov null but they could exist in NPC as well, for sure) is part of what I have in mind for the later mechanics thoughts.
Avatar
I know this isn't the end solution but what Mynnna said is true 0.0 system do not support many people per system. Could a simple fix to this be to add advanced military upgrades to the IHUB? This would increase the amount of sites spawned in systems. It would also be a short term isk sink because these items are seeded by CCP. I really think Null Sec needs a complete overhaul but this seams to be a simple band-aid fix to help with a bunch of the current problems. Edit: Second thought people always complain about power projection. My though is what if the distance between regions was expanded. So to move from region to region you needed to hold key systems in order to beachhead into a new region. Right now Carriers and Supers can hit many different regions from a single system if CCP changed it so you needed to be in say DO6H-Q to be able to move capitals to U-INPD. This might not be a great idea but I am one to agree currently moving capitals multi-regions is to easy.
Avatar
Player density is part of the puzzle, but so are moons.
Avatar
Everyone I speak to wants more small fleet combat, the new POS system will open that up, people will have to defend their systems, it will change Eve for the better. At this point it is impossible. I was in IRC, we used a system as a corp, after Razor came in those systems are dead, not used. Thta is the reality of 0.0. Say that I could get back in there, put up a POS that I could use and started operating there, its not great space, but suddenly Razor have someone to kill, though of course I will not be easy to kill. They will have to spend time in that system making sure that I do not get the time to operate, or give up and focus on their better sov systems and roam in or camp me. Its a game changer and will improve Eve no end. I would not be bothered about moon goo with this change to be honest!
Avatar
Actually with the new POS system there is no POS shield, so yes.
Avatar
Here's the issue with Sov and Small Alliances... It's NOT that Big alliances/coalitions can come in and stomp the crap out of the little guys.... It's the Sov Mechanics are pretty single-sided towards Bigger fleets.All Sov Targets are superstructures with millions of hitpoints... Taking or Defending Sov is 100% based around fights over these structures... The problem lies in the tools available to attack those structures. I'm not talking about whether you can field a Supercap fleet to grind through it in minutes, or whether you can only field a 60 man BS gang that takes an hour... What I'm talking about is the static timing that surrounds these structure shoots. Everything is well timed and on a clock with tons of advanced warning... This actually benefits big coallitions far more than a small alliance, because the only advantage a small group has over a big coalition is to be sporadic, unpredictable, and utilize hit-n-run tactics... Sov warfare currently has very little room for this, as a hit and run tactic rarely holds the field, and is almost never able to defend a structure (especially against capitals).In Short, the Sov system needs a revamp that includes small-scale objectives that alllow guerrilla tactics to influence the Sov Game...
Avatar
Razor is now blue to R O G U E so...
Avatar
Mynnna reinforces his position as my favourite Goon with most of this article.What i feel is missing from this article though is not the discussion of corp-level psychology when it comes to holding space, but rather the other way around: If you look at what where most of us seem to be tugging our ideals lately, they all head in the direction of "old EVE". Not the POS-shooting of old (or small-corps beliving they'd escape having their POS shot or being out-POS-spammed); but rather the rat-mine-roam paradigm. It's not the smaller group's inability to stave away loss that's the problem today - it's the smaller group's inability to hurt the larger group anymore as the whacked out economy dry them of both nominal targets and targets of value. The only targets of value today are Supers and structures. Second to that it's the smaller corp's inability to sustain resources (not as an ownership foothold, but as a rogue element under the current ownership landscape).Think: "nano letting roaming groups penetrate deeper" which today is largely replaced by "capital roaming" or bridging in either form. It's not really a question of nano, but rather the various tools available to groups of different scales to go visit all areas of the game. That "foothold" could be "being fast enough to not require staging" as well as it could be "have an NPC pocket" or "have a ship-class to stage around covertly".I've often recited the case of Panda Team on EVEO: the single-corp alliance that managed to bleed IT's GBC so dry that when the CFC (with then member TEST) took Fountain they hardly met any resistance at all because the defenders were already effectively broken; the coalition-level defenders, broken by a single corp. It's an excellent example because there's plenty of documentation on it (movies, Kcom etc), and because it shows both the potential of a small group, the potential to build the game from there and the limitations a small group faces even when effectively dominant in space.It showed that a small corp that sustain itself (in this case from NPC-null pockets inside a sovereign region, and by staging around certain ship-classes) can cause wide destruction, but also the pointlessness of the situation from both sides once "burnt soil" structure-strategies are employed. It showed both the potential and limitation, stressed the value of ships in space as the great equalizer that allow interaction - rather than structures. Structures is an advantage the larger can have, or is supposed to have on their side; but ships need to be at least an equal source of value to achieve some sense of balance. Today they are usually not as there are far too many ships that are too good while being too cheap to replace.In the case of Fountain in 2010, the GBC held the structures and the Pandas took over the presence in space. It ended in a stalemate that echo everytime even a large coalition lament the task of clearing infrastructure rather than getting fights.There may be a time when thinking about changing various ownership mechanics through "big features" may be appropriate - but the number one concern from CCP's side should be to make ships valuable again, both as income-creation and outlet-destruction.That's the great equalizer, or at least the great "where numerical advantages are balanced with risk" that used to exist in the past.We can talk about the overblown survivability of Supercapitals all day, but most events that involve loss of them have also involved significant loss in one fell swoop, with great upheaval in it's wake. That's wildly different from structure-wars, even those that just involve valuable moons. If CCP were smart, they'd resdesign the game to capitalize on that, especially with the amount of supers we have in the game. They'd incentivize their use outside of escalated grid-blockades.If we spell it out with clarity, the medicine the doctor order would (as always) be:- ISK creation back in ship / player hands (valuable ratting, mining of valuable minerals).- ISK destruction back in ship / player hands (ie., balance ship-tech and class-size around ISK).- Balance creation and destruction on a general level (so we don't make alot of ISK and amass cheap ships).- Reformation of Supers into "rogue outposts" (covert starbases, etc.) to encourage small-corp insurgency in areas where there are no nearby NPC-pockets or other access to resupplies.The latter would not really let a small corp overtake a large one on an ownership-level alone, but it involves coexistance with advantages to the defender and risks on both sides. The myriad of recent complaints about "AFK cloaking" should give you a picture of what i'm on about here. That discussion is even more interesting on a general balance level, between holders and rogues. It would also discourage current combat-use as an HP-brick to counter amassed DPS.This would effectively deal with the "overpowered" advantages exploited by the ideals of both GSF (bottomed-out ship values) and PL (amassment of high-value ships to counteract high-risk use); and it would do so without really marginalizing either group anyway. They'd still continue to be good contenders in the game, but it would strip the exploitative advantages of amassing cheap ships and amassing the largest ships, which is what primarily leads to the current stalemate of nullsec, doctrines and congregation of coalitions.It would also let a good smaller group strain a poor larger group, and limit the possible aid of better larger friends on a fairly balanced palette: as it currently exist with "AFK coverts". Shifting the value of holding a grid over select times as opposed to holding entire systems for extended periods of time that allow for multiple possibilities of spontaneous engagement and content.
Avatar
Level 4 pirate missions make RIDICULOUS amounts of isk/hr.The problem is there are already small nullsec groups controlling them that no one wants to fight with.
Avatar
People always suggest this, and this is always the answer:We'd just need a few more mids and maybe a minute for capacitor fit ships to regen cap. It'd cost a bit more fuel, and we'd need another cyno or two. So what? Ironically, that impacts the little guys a whole lot more than it impacts the big guys. We have the isk to piss away - new groups do not.
Avatar
Get more people so that you can out blob the blob seems to be like an overly simplistic answer to the problem. Its far easier to recruit, and recruit people with high sp pand experiance if your already a well established 0.0 alliance which has all the benefits of being part of a larger coalition, jump bridges, moons, srf etc. Small alliances may also want to stay small for whatever reason, as a result of this they can't and shouldn't be able to hold the same amount of sov as say a member of the CFC. This makes sense, the problem is that they have alot of trouble holding a small amount of sov that befits their size. The question is, is there anyway to make it so that these smaller alliances can more easilly defend and so hold and live out of small regions of space? The answer is npc null, as the article correctly points out, and so maybe an npc null revamp would make for a "small alliance" revamp as well.
Avatar
The thing that shits all over your comment is that they don't form their own policies or agendas. They give up their own right to take strategic decisions and pass that to the head of their coalition. Should they wish to retain that right they promptly find themselves back in highsec (from where they came, since both NPC-null and Lowsec is filled with smaller groups that have amassed far more experience and resources than them; yet are marginalized from sovspace).Making friends = entering into servitude.There is a massive power-gap between the smallest junior coalition partners and that of true sovereign actors in non-sov space: such as RnK (NPC-null), Snuff (Low), DnD/LO (FW) and VoC (WH). Most of those groups are on a standalone level equal to several of the major coalition partners and on a spontaneous level ready to dance even with the coalition heads.
Avatar
So another article that starts off decrying the "my play styler is more important than yours" argument, then goes on to argue why their play style is more important than others.
Avatar
So another commentator that misses the point.
Avatar
Tired of hearing about the "Little Guy", like they are some sacred item that eve online cultivates. Eve cultivates a spirit of cooperation and getting along with other to accomplish a goal. NO I don't think CCP should hamstring Goons so a 100 pilot alliance can capture VFK. All pilots have the same limitations in the game, working in a small group yields small results, and a larger group larger ones.
Avatar
I completely agree about what you said. I am just stating that with the extreme ranges we are currently able to jump I think there should be more effort to move region to region. Is this going to really hurt major alliances no. Is it going to make the opening of invasions more critical when you have to stabilize a beach head when you are trying to take regions yes. This is what I am getting at I think movement from region to region should be more strategic is all.
Avatar
If you're in a new alliance and you want to be in nullsec you either have to base out of NPC space or join one of the three big coalitions.If you choose to join a big coalition it's not 'making friends' so much as making a deal where you sacrifice your independence in exchange for isk and a guaranteed defense of your space. For most Eve players that's a pretty good deal, especially if you're a casual grunt who just wants to join fleets and shoot spaceships. But with the way Eve currently works now it's unlikely that the leaders of these alliances will ever make any independent strategic decisions. For some people that doesn't sound appealing at all.
Avatar
Imagine this for a moment... All RF timers on Sov structures are removed... Only the IHUB gets RF timers, each lasting two-ish days initially, and the total number of RF cycles it gets is based on the defender's Corp/Alliance's Sov Index:Sov index == (Sum of all Military, Industrial, and Strategic Indexes in your owned Systems) / 4x(Total number of systems you own). You would end up with 0-3 RF cycles... if you own tons of space, and don't use it... you get no RF cycles and your systems are easy to take...Add to this many random small gang objectives to significantly shift RF timers so the IHUB might exit RF up to 12 hours early or 24 hours late (ideally with some notice to everyone in system).. Have these guerrilla objectives most commonly spawn during the defender's "desired time," and we suddenly have a system that allows big coalitions to "curbstomp through regions at a breakneck pace" but leaves ALL their Sov vulnerable to do so. It allows active residents to significantly hinder the loss of their territory, it creates small gang objectives that encourage both sides to keep fleets in system, and tenacious groups like the Walltreipers would require much more effort to remove!I'm not saying ONLY have hit and run tactics... The TCU or SBU must be stormed eventually... but if provide guerrilla targets to allow small groups to alter the terms (time) of the engagement, you allow them to compete in a manner that's just not possible with the current system. And yes, I know a large group can just deploy 25 small gangs to every system in a region while the small group can only deploy one or two such gangs... So what... If a large group deploys on this level, then they are actually involved in the war... It takes far, far more effort to actively patrol a bunch of systems than it does to show up for 20 minutes and shoot a Structure once every two days!!
Avatar
I read the first few sentences and that was all I needed...and will say I disagree completely. My 180 man null alliance walks all over these "big guys". Yeah we don't go walking into their staging systems in sov null or try to face off on their fleet doctrines blobs. But the stagglers, scrappy make-shift lack of small gang skill, and dumb ass cap pilots lose to us regularly. We are pissing on FA and razor at the moment because outside of their blobs they are shit (this is not a biased response as its true..feel free to deny it or defend but look at their killboard loses out outside of their campaign)Basically little alliances with good fleet command and knowledgeable pilots will provide endless fun and success against these big guys. Yeah they blob we will lose but remember...the big guys have the image strictly due to numbers which will win for obvious reasons. But to reiterate, there are plenty of tactics where the little guys will be that annoying and undoubtably successful pest where the mega groups cannot respond or counter in their smaller numbers or unprepared states.
Avatar
I dont think you understand just how much of nullsec is within 21 jumps of H-Pa (I think everywhere in the CFC is within that). Thats roughly an hours travel time.In any case, nerfing hotdrops will mean the Big Blue Blob can happily put out small numbers of scouts and grind through the noob alliance, because we brought enough numbers, and the change means they cant get reinforcements ... including those nasty nasty Temporary Blues."Bubble wrap" is wonderful stuff, by the way.Oh, and the major historical weapon of the CFC, the one that has won them victory after victory ? Jump Freighters. Padded Helmets move ~500 Hurricanes, Drakes and Scimitars into the staging system, and then every Big Blue Blob pilot gets to reship multiple times.On the other hand, the outnumbered local residents dont.
Avatar
"What you want is a themepark MMO" It only took you two sentences to start spouting stupid bullshit you picked up from other people! New record!
Avatar
"using the game mechanics that everyone else had access to" You do realise not everyone can just recruit on SA, right ? Has nothing to do with better usage of game mechanics or whatever, the alliances leading the two major coallitions of the moment have access to a recruitment pool that others don't. Am not even sure if the game should be changed just because of that, but let's not pretend there's some magical leadership qualities that lead to this situation.
Avatar
Nothing you just said disagrees with or even refutes the point, but grats on your elite pvp status I guess?
Avatar
I think small scale isk objectives is what CCP had in mind with pocos. I think Pol's alliance is strong enough to be able to control pocos in a significant area of NPC 0.0. The income from pocos, if the area is inhabited, can be significant. GSF gets 30 billion a month in poco taxes (15% rate).Granted, I think there is plenty of room to expand this concept, especially wrt to defending or improving pirate space, but pocos are a good start for any small alliance.
Avatar
In a previous article on one of these news sites, someone mentioned how in NPC 0,0 you actually have to "control" the system or constellation you live in a much more organic faction. By having a strong PvP presence in NPC 0,0 it is possible to drive out any locals. Contrast this with SOV space where systems can be controlled simply by being within cyno range of the jump bridge network.So in my system why would SOV alliances not take over? Because the money/incentives would still be better in SOV space and it would require "organic control" in NPC 0,0 to hold these objectives. Unless a SOV alliance wanted to deploy into NPC 0,0 and live there and actively defend objectives with less incentives than 0,0 moons/ratting/renting, then they wouldn't bother with these objectives.My alliance moved from Curse to Molden Heath for the lols. We are currently fighting PL and a local for control of some Platinum moons. This almost simulates what I am talking about. Because we live in the region it's pretty easy for us to reinforce the PL towers for the next 3 months and kill them any time they choose not to show up. The incentive for us is there because 2-3 billion isk will fund our SRP needs enough to expand. The hope is that PL will not want to put up with the headache over something so insignificant for them in the long run.Create more pockets of NPC 0,0 that can be "organically controlled" for alliance level income (passive income which can be collected within game mechanics and requires alliance level PvP protection) to give us a stepping stone to challenge large entities.
Avatar
This would make it "a bitch" to do anything in-game, much less actually have a large-scale fight.CCP, and the playerbase at large, likes 3000-man battles. If you have to cart everything in from your entire sovereignty in order to have a battle, you're going to see a lot less fighting. Sov-grinding would be nothing compared to "gate-grinding" your way a region away.
Avatar
We thought the same thing. POCO's are fun and I think a step in the right direction but did not yield a profit for us. My guess is because we drove out the locals from our constellation and our recruitment base largely excludes care bears. Angel L4's actually yield a nice profit on an individual level so individual members could make isk if they put the time in and their time would be better spent missioning than running PI.This is fine on a smaller scale but in order to expand you have to accept members who may not have the time to continually lose ships in PvP and earn it all back on their own. Once you get into the 150-250 active members range "organized PVE" and the like becomes too difficult to manage.
Avatar
My 180 man null alliance walks all over these "big guys".Uhmm, who are you?Link your killboard or shut the fuck up!PS. EN24 bullshit -----that way------>
Avatar
While I agree with you that the average PvP pilot in the "big guys" alliances are far worse than the average PvP pilot in the NPC 0,0 alliances out there, I disagree in one area.There is a difference between picking apart "home defense" fleets, stragglers, and Roams, from actually taking strategic objectives. When you try to take SOV style objectives from them, the blob will come and you will lose.While I would even guess that most NPC 0,0ers don't have any interest in SOV style objectives, some do. My goal in my alliance has been to build it up from a high sec corp all the way to SOV without bluing/or becoming subordinate to half of EVE in the process. We made it to precisely the type of gameplay you describe in your alliance but I would like game mechanics which created a stepping stone into being able to confront SOV entities over strategic objectives.
Avatar
There’s an unquestioned assumption here that puzzles me. The Captain appears disturbed that “small group play styles” can’t compete in sovereign null-sec, but never questions whether sovereign null-sec should be a prime location for small group play.As a little guy, when I look at sovereign null-sec I see long established INSTITUTIONS ruling the roost. Institutions composed of hundreds or thousands of players and years of history building them up to the lofty heights they currently occupy. I think it’s a bit hubristic to expect that I and my little band of merry friends ought to be able to waltz into that environment and wreak havoc on the powers that currently hold the space.If one wants to be a mover and shaker in sovereign null-sec one ought to expect to apply the same dedication to the endeavor as the current residents have. If one prefers small group play one might want to consider that sovereign null-sec isn’t the best place for it.Eve’s a big place. That “small group players” are annoyed that their preferred play style doesn’t shine where the big institutions roam is baffling.
Avatar
Very interesting perspective there and put forward well without the usual whinging. Good luck (un-sarcastically) with expanding your alliance, I hope you beat PL!
Avatar
Your point is good in theory, but it fails the empirical test. Right now we have a situation where sov null is no place for anyone but large alliances and coalitions. And apart from the minority of rusted on mouth breathing line members and a few cynical alliance leaders, most people in sov null agree that this is not a good state of affairs. Mynna certainly doesn't sound like he's saying it's all hunky dory, but rather that the solutions others are proposing aren't the right ones.No one is saying that large alliances shouldn't have real advantages over smaller groups. They certainly deserve to reap the rewards for organising thousands of players, overcoming all the difficulties of bringing so many people together, and their impressive organisational capacity.The problem, as I see it, is that the difficulty of controlling space only increases in a linear fashion to the size of the space. This is definitely a-historic from a real worlds perspective. Ideally the core systems of an alliance would be pretty much off limits and suicidal for small enemies, but the fringes should be more difficult to defend and allow dedicated guerrilla groups to plant a weak foothold there.
Avatar
Started reading, saw it was a Goon, and stopped. I love how they push agendas to make the game better for themselves. The new BOB of Eve.
Avatar
They may a bit big to be called small alliances, but those forming the N3 and their neighboors seems to act like what Mynnna talked about at the end. Maybe they'll accept others entities that want to play the same way.
Avatar
There's a phrase for that: Ad Hominem.
Avatar
Please point out where this article implies that "CFC's play style is the only play style that matters", I seem to have missed it. Is it one of those "reading between the lines things" (ie misinterpreting what IS said to suit your preconceived idea of what you THINK somebody would say)?
Avatar
-A- thing.
Avatar
While it sounds fine and dandy on paper, that would mean that vital upgrades that allow for cyno jammers, jumpbridges, cyno beacons and CSAAs are rendered effectively useless forever.First of all, it would make logistics and management a lot more work and time consuming than it already is, which is already tantrum inducing for mid-to large sized alliances. It is also a death sentence to supercapital building, since you would only need a small gang to abort a month-long Titan build by offlining the upgrade. It would also mean that a larger entity can paralyze a smaller one indefinitely just because, and would only feed the numbers game even more.There's not even a real incentive to undocking to prevent people from offlining upgrades under such a system, because the only thing that'll happen is that people will wait it out before starting repping. It just creates a lot of extra work for no content without adressing the status quo.
Avatar
Unimpressed,So, if I understand you correctly, the well established sovereign null-sec corps/alliances/coalitions, “certainly deserve to reap the rewards for organizing thousands of players [and] overcoming all the difficulties of bringing so many people together” and one of those rewards should be “real advantages over smaller groups.” But . . .Again, if I understand you correctly, “the problem, as [you] see it, is that the difficulty of controlling space only increases in a linear fashion to the size of the space” when difficulties should increase in an exponential fashion.Also, if I understand you correctly, this is the commonly held view among sovereign null-sec residents with the exception of “rusted on mouth breathing line members and a few cynical alliance leaders.”Perhaps the massive corps/alliances/coalitions do have it too easy getting to reap such rewards while only paying costs in contemptible linear fashion. Those craven big-timers, them!Your assertion that sovereign null-sec empires should have game mechanics generated cores and fringes, though probably a damn fine claim, needs support beyond saying it’s the commonly held view. At this point, you’ve merely restated in finer detail The Captain’s assumption that sovereign null-sec should be a place for the dedicated little guy to flourish.It just doesn’t follow, without support, that resolving the plight of the little guy vis-à-vis sovereign null-sec in your preferred manner will move things towards a hunky dory state.
Avatar
Hey do you know how to read? I said make them use stargates.
Avatar
You didn't even fucking read the first sentence I wrote.
Avatar
When you're small, you're harder to hit and have fewer opportunities to die. Meanwhile, with larger null sec alliances, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. You don't even need a big gun, it's just a steady flow of targets. But if it helps you sleep at night knowing that your killboards are green and you're fully satisfied by this, then quite possibly the point Myanna was making isn't your cup of tea anyway. Which I may add, you missed horribly by not reading and have made yourself look rather uneducated.While you and many others in EVE spend their time recruiting the 'best', we spend our time recruiting people who will fit into our community and build it's personality. Win or lose, our egos don't get hurt by being blown up because we laugh at our own failures and are able to crack on each other with a smile. Instead of pouring over killboards and worrying about how efficient we are, we're happy to just hear each other laugh or happy to see each other out in a roam together.We have our skilled pilots and they're extremely good at what they do. They just don't feel the need to be so hard on others who do make dumb mistakes.This may very well be the situation for your small group as well. However, I rather enjoy my average pilot, even if they're not 'elite'.
Avatar
This is the point he's making. The game seems to be intentionally designed this way and in order to make it in the sov holding null sec, you may need to find your niche in the meta game.Not to mention that there are tons of ways to generate income without moons. Trust me, I know, I was there once before. Before we moved north to crash on a friend's couch, we had 500m in our wallets and a few POS towers.We chose our path and a smart one it was as our members are happy with our space, our income and most importantly, their fleet mates.
Avatar
My alliance proves you wrong. As does the majority of the alliances in the HBC, as well as N3... well, shit. All the power blocs have at least one new comer to the scene. And N3 is a prime example of flexing to maintain a hold in sov holding null sec.
Avatar
You serious?The only reason you exist is because, for some strange reason, the CFC has accepted you into their pet fold.
Avatar
Yes I get that this is the point he, you, and all other cozy SOV players are making.The point I'm making is I don't want to "crash on a friends" couch. I want the ability to use my superior skills to work my way up the food chain so that I can invite my own friends over to party on my terms.As it stands Sov rewards the good old boy's club but the entry barrier for new entities is too steep. It's not a PVP skill barrier, it's not a recruitment barrier, it's a small scale alliance objective/isk barrier."Make more friends" is a lame excuse. I have friends/alts in your alliances, as well as most of the other large alliances running around. My corporation has been actively recruited by most of the top alliances. The whole point is that we don't want to join someone else's show. How did the original SOV players get to be the top dogs in the first place? Logic would state that they didn't have a couch to crash on since no house had been built with bolt locked doors, a security system, and a pack of guard dogs."Meta game better" is a lame excuse. That's code for "blue up all of EVE, it's easy, we did it." I want a challenge, I want to shoot stuff, I want EVE to be fun.I'm not asking for your precious SOV space to be nerfed. In fact, I want it to be better than NPC 0,0 to give me something to work towards, and to keep you lot interested elsewhere. All I'm asking is that if my alliance can field 30-40 man fleets, and "control" a constellation in NPC 0,0, that we have some passive income source worth 2-3 billion a month. Once we outgrow NPC 0,0, we move away and lose that 2-3 billion so someone else can take our space. Hopefully are invading some SOV space somewhere else.
Avatar
Null-sec sov:Why not jack sov bills way up, relative to system upgrade level (costing more for a system at lower level/without an Ihub) and some metric of system use (could be combination of mining done, sites done, volume traded in stations, etc.). It could also be on a tiered system tied to total alliance sov so as not to screw over smaller/newer alliances with less money/fewer players.Doesn't make sov grinding less.... grindy.... but if there are potentially fewer systems to grind, the grind becomes more palatable. I also think that, with shorter potential sov grinds, the big alliances/coalitions would be less likely to camp and harass newer groups in null because of the greater danger of being invaded. Imagine this: If these changes were implemented, HBC and CFC would, theoretically, give up a bunch of sov to cut costs. That sov would potentially be taken by newcomers. Now, at the moment, I think those newcomers would either be destroyed or forced to bow down (blue up) to the coalitions. The horrors of full on sov war seems to be a significant part of the reason HBC/CFC didn't go to war. By cutting down that grind significantly, HBC may decide to go for it, at the very least, CFC has to be concerned about the risks of camping new alliances in stations when a serious war could be brewing.
Avatar
Suggestion. Stop trying to fight big alliances at their own brain-damaged game (doctrine fleets) and go guerrilla. Do more with less. Scale outward, not upward.
Avatar
But these SpoonFeds are losing, they just don't know it. They are effectively paying for the PLEXs of, and enriching, a select few by grinding structures and fleets for them. In actuality, they could learn to fly and be fighting against larger/fat alliances and using the spoils to fund their own PLEX and ambitions.The amount of misinformation and propaganda produced by alliances is astounding. Fleet doctrines, the military metaphor, etc. New pilots see these things and think "this must be how the game is played, because SomeBigAlliance does it, and they're rich". It's sad, because it's all a big scam, and a lot of good people fall for it.I'm content knowing that this is changing. I just spent a week watching a dozen Iberians own SV. I was so impressed with their balls that we hooked up and I'm having a blast, making a ton of ISK killing SV's faction fit rejects, and improving my Spanish all at the same time.
Avatar
This is like the real world though. All the land is spoken for already and has been for years. If you want your own thing you either have to exist between the cracks, be the giant killer, or find a place so terrible that no one wants it and Principality of Sealand it up. Eve is not fair and never has been. The only time a small splinter nation breaks off successfully is when enough of the rest of the world hates the place it broke off from to enforce a "do not Genocide these people" policy. If you want a place to start where no one will screw with you and isn't NPC nullsec I'm thinking a low end wormhole, the kind that the big guys don't want because you can't build mobile deathstars in them, would be the place.
Avatar
You must be loved Mynnna, 104 comments and no one criticized the font change you've got going on up there. :)
Avatar
You've done such a good job at completely missing the point that was made I have to believe it was a deliberate troll.
Avatar
DireNecessity,I should probably have written my previous post more carefully, as I didn't quite convey what I meant.Firstly, in regards to my proposed "solution" that difficulties of holding and controlling space should increase in an exponential manner. I am not claiming it is a popular or otherwise view point among sov null residents. I wouldn't claim to know if there's a proposed solution that's preferred by most sov null residents.What I am claiming, is that sov null is meant, to some degree at least, to simulate a historic struggle for domination between large kingdoms/empires. The parallels are many and fairly true. From the growth and collapse of large entities through decadence, to the persistence of large entities such as the CFC through continuously feeding their membership with purpose, esprit de corp and not resting on their laurels (latest choice of the status quo aside).Throughout history we've seen that large empires or countries can rarely control all parts of their territory and that the outlying regions of such entities have always been and continue to be places where guerrilla groups, dissidents, insurgents, etc have been able to flourish.I personally think that that being reflected in eve as small groups being able to grow in the fringes of sov null coallition space would be a great outcome. Just think of say CFC having to go out of an expedition to crush some upstarts in delve who have been terrorising the locals. I'm all for CFC being able to crush them if they put their will to it, but I want it to be a meaningful decision to do so, with real costs and sacrifice, not the current 4 hours exercise where 500 man fleets are teleported across the universe for the evening.Regardless of the merits of the idea, I am not claiming it to be the majority opinion in any way.However, in regard to the empirical results of the prevalent situation in which large entities have overwhelming power and linear scale to control their empire, I do claim that the majority of sov null residents find the current status quo as unsatisfactory and boring.
Avatar
I was talking about the mechanics, and not a bunch of other loosely associated stuff like bombs and nullifiers. Hit cloak, 5 secund pseudo invuln, disappear. The cloak-on-cloak stuff is interesting, but not a game changer to me. CCP simply lowered the barrier of entry for SB so that all 7 of thm didn't need their own set of bookmarks.It's a buff to cloakers, a nerf to those who seek to decloak them. No longer can I cloak my Sabre off a gate and travel up/down the bombing lanes waiting for MrPersistentSB to reveal 1900m from me. At least I won't be petitioned so often by pilots that do not understand how ridiculously easy decloaking them was, and in turn having to explain to CCP_SomeNewEmployee how their game works. I guess there's a bright side to everything.
Avatar
Unimpressed,Nice response. First a minor quibble, then a general observation.The quibble:“sov null is meant, to some degree at least, to simulate a historic struggle for domination between large kingdoms/empires.” “meant?” hmmmm. In my experience CCP has a history of introducing game mechanics with little awareness of the results those mechanics are going to produce. When, in panicked scramble, they introduced Tier 3 battlecruisers I don’t suspect they meant to usher in a glorious flourishing of Hi-Sec ganking. Nonetheless, that happened until further coding damped down the practice. Still this quibble is minor. Substitute “ought” for “meant” and your cogent suggestions stand well on their own.The general observation:As argumentative device, it’s often quite convincing to point out that someone’s actions aren’t producing the results they desire. Why? Because it brings the argument down to nearly indisputable basic math. “You want X. Action Y doesn’t produce X. You should switch to action Z which *will* produce your desired X.” In EvE speak this approach is trotted out as, “EvE is intended to be X. Game mechanic Y thwarts that intent. Nerf Y!!!!” When presented this way, only the irrational math ignorant would disagree. But . . .In a sandbox game it’s damn difficult to discern what types of play CCP intends to promote. In fact, the more intentions CCP introduces into the game, the less of a genuine sandbox the game becomes. There’s a deep tension within sandbox games. Unlike real life, in games, sand physics is malleable. This saddles CCP in the difficult position of trying to sell a sandbox game to a batch of players clamoring for space physics changes promoting their preferred play style.Sometimes I feel for CCP. CCP claims to be selling a sandbox game to a batch of customers many of which appear to actually want only the illusion of a sandbox game. Poor buggers.
Avatar
Go on then, tell us. How many people? Amaze us. (Way to sidestep the point, mynnna)But you DO get the point of Marlona's comment, right?Most people posting here (apart from the trolls) are talking about the OP projection of force over distance. Lack of any way for a small gang to make any meaningful difference on the fringes of Sov. space. The idea that Eve is a combat space game rather than a space version of Monopoly.Funny, I don't see many of the "amazing" amount of "no-sov small scale gang dreamland [who want] the complete elimination of the big guy" types posting here... I wonder where they've all gotten to.
Avatar
Normalize the truesec. All of a sudden, all of nullsec has the same truesec, and you don't need to own a lot of shitty space to go along with the good space you do have.
Avatar
All you have to do is push buttons once a day and you have about 350mil per character. You just have to be able to get that back out to jita to sell. When I remember, I have an alt who does that, and once a week i go around to my planets and pick the shit up and take it back to the JF hub to get sent back to highsec. I pretty much just don't rat, and PI pays for my plex every month.
Avatar
Lithia at least knows what the fuck he is talking about. That guy multiboxes Sabre+Falcon and sometimes when needed: Dps. Really good at getting decloaks.
Avatar
You can do a lot of what you're listing right now, with a logged-off carrier.The problem comes in when the locals notice 'NPC kills in the last 24 hours' on Dotlan ...
Avatar
Just keep in mind that many of those situations you describe are just that, situational. Not only does the Tech II ship provide a sink of a couple of hundred million ISK that the Tech I ship does not, it's also more likely to contain higher priced modules as you already have a downpayment in on the hull. People are more likely to fit a cheaper hull cheaper.This is especially true for those modules (and ships) that hit breakpoints and maintain fair performance without Tech II while others struggle to meet the demands around themselves without better modules (BS turrets come to mind with point-range short range and sniper-range long range, even though norm and the low initial budget on the hull itself may encourage grasping the short stretch for the performance of Tech II): "What else would you spend your ISK on if you have it?" :)That leads to the next situation of importance, performance. Many of those ships, provided they do hit breakpoints function particularily well even on budget hulls, with budget fitting. We may fit Tech II same as we fit Faction in certain cases, because we can or because losing them in a favourable position doesn't matter too much. When pressured (after consequtive losses) we may revert back to bottom-line options and examining their potential is interesting.---That goes for the hulls as well. I'm sure you face a bunch of expensive hulls on your adventures too. I know people to fly the most profane things when casually wasting away in everyday space, but that is far from how they act with imminent tangible loss before them. The typical Thorax or Stabber isn't much easier of a kill in an overkill-situation (when you have a couple of ships, and have caught them) than a Deimos or Vaga - as they tend to go pop pretty quick then as well.Consider the reversed though and you begin to see the issue. What happens when they start giving you proper attention with Vagas or with Stabbers. If it's with Vagas there's an appeal and incentive to meet them there. If they have a bunch of Stabbers more than you have total ships, and your ships have a Tech II pricetag attached to them, you will hesitate to even provide them a target - right? I'm not saying that is wrong, it's only logical, but that is what is happening in the game and it's a potential fight lost because it's just not worth up-engaging and taking risks against a collective bottomed out value.Your good tackle and ECM afterall tend to be Tech II ships. If their Stabbers (or w/e) are properly fit and have a hull loss of maybe 10m ontop of that, so they stand to risk 20m... there's obviously more incentive for you to engage even against the odds and with 200m ships. If they stand to lose 2m or 7m, maybe not so much :).----As always, this become more interesting the more we scale up; we can disregard numbers even and look at ships again: a Cruiser have little differentiation, a Frigate even less (which is something speaking for Tech II Frigates, as the margin is so small that they are also generally regarded as "cheap"). When it comes to larger ships it's interesting though. Especially when you factor in the ships favoured in properly composed gangs to larger fleets. When we opt out of better options because the BC class is so comparably cheap, or how even "expensive" ships like BS or Carriers are relatively cost-effective. Then, given their much higher performance relative similarily priced hulls.I've made this example before: If you think about a fairly priced Recon within your style of gameplay (let's say a dual-RF-point Razu) then we are looking at prices fairly similar to a Carrier. Is there any surprise that Carriers are getting immensely popular, and 'en masse'?So while it's cool that you efficiently disrupt casual traffic and have a good success-rate while at it, i also don't think it's too much to ask to see there be an incentive for you and your friends to provide content when someone fling a small-medium dedicated gang of Stabbers at you as well. It should be within your "reach", and most importantly: it should be an appealing enough target for you to take the risk of providing content rather than holding off until something engagable present itself.Casually calling you "just a ganker" is about as ridiculous as throwing "just a blobber" around with any deeper sense of the term - but it should also be noted that you likely have a smaller engagement envelope than the roaming gangs of old; and when those adapt into C2 and BC3 they create another barrier to PvP incentives and fights become further dislodged from "creation and destruction" and further planted into starvation. Next, people wonder why certain groups don't fight or go to war anymore - that's starvation for you, right there.That's also the argument the people who refuse to adapt have that i can partially sympathize with. I do that even if i also enjoy the kind of work you do - and agree with you that not as many people as should be expected have caught onto it's potential - despite most "small-gang / non-scale" changes CCP have introduced in the past few years have encouraged such a style and discouraged other styles.
Avatar
I don't know what you mean by the original sov players but I'm pretty sure every current sov holder got their start by proving their worth to an existing power. Goonfleet raided BOS/LIH in Syndicate until they were impressed enough to invite us to join them. We used the space they gave us to grow until we were able to attempt to invade a region of our own (we failed). Our tenacity in that attempt allowed us to negotiate a partnership with RA and successfully take the south from LV.Holding space has always required having relationships with your neighbours even if you aren't formally blue and if you'd read the article you've have seen multiple examples of this. You seem to think your "superior skills" should allow you to live in your personal isolated bubble where you are free to pvp against the people around you but immune to interference (never mind the fact that your skills probably aren't as superior as you think if you haven't yet pulled this off).
Avatar
Didn't FA broadcast about killboards green not long ago?? =)
Avatar
This is probably the best idea I've heard yet.

The whole "woe is the little guy, for he cannot compete in null-sec" meme has become "A Thing" lately. Lots of people discussing it, lots of people throwing around ideas for how to make it happen, and lots of people apparently not thinking (or caring) very much about the implications of their ideas; or, in the rare case, fully aware of them and fine with it. A while ago, Rhavas asked me what I thought about it.

A significant number of those ideas seem to be formed around the notion of being able to coexist alongside big alliances, harassing and annoying each other and those big alliances at will, being shielded from "excessive retaliation from those alliances", those alliances simply no longer existing under new game mechanics, not having to deal with sovereignty but getting all the benefits of it, or any or all of the above, and more. In short, it's not "how do we fix null-sec so it's fun for all, including me" but "how do we fix null-sec so that it's fun for me, everyone else be damned."

It's quite true that a small group has no real way into sovereign null-sec on their own in the current state of the game. The large alliances and power blocs they build snap up lots of space, more often for strategic reasons or actual use for their pilots than for simple greed. We, GoonSwarm, have owned six regions in the past; especially with the modern system, that would be far too much now, so we're content with the two-and-change we hold these days, thank you very much. The space isn't as unused as most players think—just look at the twenty-four hour chart for Deklein, for example. Goons are like a militia of peasant-warriors and we love to rat. Still, emptiness is an easy assumption to make, especially if you've been there. Despite thousands of rat kills a day almost region-wide, each system really only supports a handful of ratters at a time, so they appear lightly used at best. Regardless, even unused systems are jealously guarded. If you, as a little guy, want in, it's most often as a renter, a pet, or at best, a minor member of a coalition. In any of those cases, with few notable exceptions (Walltreipers and their defense in Delve comes to mind), if the little guy is left alone, they're dead without much of a fight. Understandably, none of those options appeal to many people.

I have no problem with the idea of changing mechanics to open up space such that the need or obligation for the existing big guys to take as much space as they do now is reversed, and even placing soft constraints on how much space they can take. I even have some ideas on what a system that does that could look like—more on that another time. Still, make more space available, and some of these smaller entities might have a shot at it. If they're able to establish themselves, it'd be nice—having more variety out in null-sec means more fights of all sizes, and a broader political landscape would be interesting for everyone.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that the notional Egypts and Israels, and even smaller Yemens and Polands, have the right to coexist alongside the Russias and Chinas and United States of EVE without fear of being flattened. The play styles of the big alliances are just as valid as those of the little guys. Almost any limitation I can think of that mitigates the "overwhelming force" a larger alliance can bring to bear on a smaller alliance also hinders that same force when brought to bear on another large alliance, where it's considered "normal force." Whether you like it or not, the big alliances are included in the "all styles of play" that CCP Seagull wants to support, and she's decidedly unlikely to sacrifice the big guy just to let the fractal landscape of no-sov small-gang PvP dreamland come to fruition.

What that means is that if you, as a small guy, want to play the game, you're probably going to play the metagame as well. That doesn't have to mean an endless string of blues, or even any blues at all—one non-invasion pact and mutual defense agreement with an otherwise neutral big neighbor could keep the rest off your back. Or if that's not to your taste, make the same agreement with a handful of smaller like-minded entities; you'll raid and shoot each other for fun, but if the big guy next door comes over the border, you team up to repel the attack. Show some creativity in your diplomacy and resulting agreements, because like it or not, it's a fact of life in sovereign null-sec. If you want to be a little rogue actor, owning a few systems, defying diplomatic overtures from those around you, harassing and stealing from each and every one of them, that's fine—just accept that you're going to have to man up and take your lumps if someone decides they've had enough. But if you want to do all of that, while living in a place where you can do it without material repercussions from your target's victims, then perhaps what you should be calling for is a revamp of NPC null-sec or low-sec instead.

Seven year veteran & economics guru of EVE Online as well as CSM 8 representative. On the side I play PS2, WOT and Hearthstone.