Sovereignty Will Never Be Fixed as it can not be fixed

[swpigwang]

War, War Never Changes.....

Remember what war is. War is a violent attempt at imposing your will on your opponent, and it is shaped by the constraints available resources and not so much by the wishes of its participants. Wars are won off the management of the hard and the painful, and that can never change.

Many players complain about the sov system and how miserable it is to participate and demand changes. However, no possible modification to the system will make it easy and fun, for the infliction of difficulties and irritation to the opponent is the very strategy that makes victory possible.

Wars are won off resources, and the relevant ones are: money, manpower and skill (intelligence). Whatever the mechanics, war will seek to stretch those resources beyond the limits of the enjoyable or reasonable. It is an unbounded escalation where the group with the greatest inhuman devotion wins.

Activities that are on the whole, "fun" can never be decisive. In a world of immortals it just means the opponent comes back for more and more fights, and strategic victory is never achieved. True victory can only be achieved by inflicting so much misery on the opponent so that they lack the will to gather resources and fight. Defeat starts and ends at surrender of the mind.

---------------------
Examples:

1. Lets take a common proposal: make small gangs decide sov~ coz small gangs are fun. Lets say through some convoluted mechanism so that multi-system spanning small fleets are now the winning strategy.

So what happens? Well people would start by running casual gangs and find it not really winning since opponent can match it easily. So they escalates, with fleet composition of ever increasing "faggotry" with whatever falcon/logi/whatever for both maximum tactical advantage and to lower the desire for the opponent in engaging them. If your pure falcon fleet or other trick can piss off enough casuals on the other side to make them not log into the next fleet, you've just won a great victory no matter if you hold grid or not at the end of the day.

Perhaps that is insufficient to win. Then the next step is to escalate on intensity. Around the clock 7/24 ops are run to wear down the opponent, more fleets are formed to contest more systems, and manpower is stretched to the limit as the leaders use every trick in the book to get people to log and overwhelm the other side as hygiene, school, careers, sanity and food intake is sacrificed, and the operation lasts as long as they could be pushed, up to the point of burn out and very pissed off players quitting the misery collectively and have the war end. No matter how much fun a battle could be, when scaled up to the point of player breaking it can no longer be fun.

If the mechanics does not allow the escalation to the point of burn out of one faction, then a perfect defense can be easily mounted and taking sov becomes almost impossible.

2. Since having isk on field decide the fight in the form of capital/superonline is well know, lets examine the last item on the list, that of skill.

Being a sandbox however, "skill" lies not in mere individuals at the front, but the organizational and strategic level operations. People will escalate and it is the features that organization have the most difficulty in emulating that will decide the outcome. What this means is things like spying, metagaming, and boring staff work like keeping track of every pilot, every ship, the organization of logistic networks, command and control structures and such will become more and more important, with ever increasing number of spreadsheets. To win, organizations will have to push closer and closer to the structure of a real military with their their stratified structure with ever increasing emphasis on discipline and professionalism and further and further removed from free form fun that gamers want.

There are other limited resources, like trust, that can be used to determine outcomes, but I don't think they'd be any more enjoyable then alternatives.

[Zakhodit]

I disagree.

First, let me state that the problem with the current SOV system isn't because it lacks fun. Fun in eve is a strange concept, I don't think EVE has a fun factor like Mario Brothers or another basic game. Satisfaction is what an EVE player seeks. You may translate that into fun but lets not get tangled up in that.

Rather let's look at the current sov system and why it has issues. It's not hard, it's clockwork. There is no Dynamic level to it, it is extemely sequential with no secondary or tertiary method of defence or attack, and since everything is timer based, very boring.

And this doesn't fit EVE. For a sandbox game with so many variations on gameplay why is SOV so simple, direct, and 1998 in game design? Star Craft (the first game) has almost the same basic win conditions as EVE SOV does. Collect resourses, build units, attack until all buildings in the area are gone.

Counter Srike has dynamic win contitions in the respect that you can win either by killing every member of the opposing force OR Defusing/Planting the bomb. Because of this dynamic it is possible for all of the Terroists to be killed, but the terroists can win if the bomb goes off.

EVE can have a dynamic Sov system that allows for as many ways to win as there are ship classes. I'm not going to therycraft them or dispute them here because that's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that it is possible. The real question is, can CCP create such a system? That is also possible, but I think it is not very probable.

[Grath]

Some bullshit
---------------------<br>

1. Lets take a common proposal: make small gangs decide sov~ coz small gangs are fun.

Whoever said decide, we said participate at a higher level than roaming, which is doesn't really contribute at all other than cheap scare tactics from the bots running for the towers.

2. Since having isk on field decide the fight in the form of capital/superonline is well know, lets examine the last item on the list, that of skill.<br>
<br>
Being a sandbox however, "skill" lies not in mere individuals at the front, but the organizational and strategic level operations. People will escalate and it is the features that organization have the most difficulty in emulating that will decide the outcome. What this means is things like spying, metagaming, and boring staff work like keeping track of every pilot, every ship, the organization of logistic networks, command and control structures and such will become more and more important, with ever increasing number of spreadsheets. To win, organizations will have to push closer and closer to the structure of a real military with their their stratified structure with ever increasing emphasis on discipline and professionalism and further and further removed from free form fun that gamers want.<br>
<br>

IDGI, the alliances that live are already pretty well structured, why is that a bad thing.

I really don't know why you decided to make this gigantic faggot post, but its OP is founded knee deep in bullshit and retardation so I really can't expect much can come from the thread itself so I'm happy I can get mines early.

Four posts and you decided you wanted to do this.

Fucking amazing.

[TheTall]

Grath has, with his usual eloquence, stated the problem with the OP. I think there is a core of truth in the OP, specifically, that to win the SOV war, one side has to get the other to stop playing. ALL recent major successes and failures in SOV warfare achieved this. There is usally (but not always) a battle in which one side's will is broken. I could be wrong, but the recent NC ousting did not have the watershed battle, but was more of a series of failures to coordinate that demoralized themselves. Again, I could be wrong as the threads were so full of shit that it was hard to tell what was going on.

So, I agree with the general idea of the OP. It is indeed nigh impossible to make the srs business sov warfare fun for BOTH sides. While the defenders are having fun, then will keep defending. OP is wrong about the whole "perfect defense" as superior tactics, fleet comps, metagaming, etc can beat a determined foe regardless of how much fun they are having.

There are conceivable changes that would make the current sov grind more dynamic. I would not advocate the old POS spam as it was death to alliance logistics. However, adding something that can't be easily killed with supers, maybe by making it unhitable by any drones, would require that some of the battles we fought with subcaps/dreads/tits. Sure, PL could still bridge in supercaps to assure that the glass cannon BS's they bring will not be touched, but that would be a start. Just an idea, and not a very good one If you have a better one, speak your piece.

[Tyrael]

Well the counter to sov grind is supercap proliferation so I don't see why people complain about both

[tgr]

New SOV requires supercaps, supercaps make losses hurt, and painful losses ends wars prematurely. vOv

[swpigwang]

It is not too hard to add fun features that are also necessary into sovereignty system, however it would never be decisive. Decisions are made on things that is SCARCE and where opponents can't casually copy the leaders operation. If it is fun and everyone can do it, it will never "win", at most it can only prevent a stupid loss.

While the defenders are having fun, then will keep defending. OP is wrong about the whole "perfect defense" as superior tactics, fleet comps, metagaming, etc can beat a determined foe regardless of how much fun they are having.

IDGI, the alliances that live are already pretty well structured, why is that a bad thing.

The reason why "superiority" is possible is because it is not available to all players. Well structured, organized and, executed operations are both difficult and not very appealing (the work it takes to make it happen isn't) to a large subgroup in Eve. Quite a few people just want to undock half drunk and fly around randomly, watch things explode and feel like they've done something important and not want a 2nd job in a spaceship military with all its trappings.

If they lose (even worst then they do now), there will be (greater) pressure to pound some skill into those guys and those guys will not have much fun. In the zero sum game that is Eve warfare, every gain by elite pilots is hurting the masses, which out number them. Usually people not interested in improvement are not important in gaming communities, but this is a subscription game and shitplayers far exceed the elite and they are the guys selling plex since they suck to much to make isk, so there is always pressure to cater to them (the n00bs, the bad players) that lets more mindless but time intensive ways of doing things.

Professionalism itself is an escalating factor no different from isk spent or manhours thrown into it when you think of it as a limitation based in psychology.

-------

Whoever said decide, we said participate at a higher level than roaming, which is doesn't really contribute at all other than cheap scare tactics from the bots running for the towers.

Strategically, it won't matter unless it is HARD or UNATTRACTIVE, and I MEAN "OMG WHY DO I PLAY THIS @#%$#%@#$" level. If it is cheap fun that can not be escalated to insanity, then alliances can quickly recruit pilots and apply funding for this role and near stalemate occurs.

Lets imagine this new mechanic limits itself to say, ~50 pilots to maintain for a specific small region. This is not too hard and soon both sides will fill this quota of ~50 pilots of reasonable skill and reach near stalemate.

Of course, the logic of the sandbox of course means there is no upper limit on what you can bring, so what could have been done with 100 pilots would soon escalate to 500, then 1000 then insanity. This is because no matter what objectives is set, there is always the other objective of killing the other guy's ships trying for that objective and numbers are always useful for that short of mechanics that teleports players into instances. The other option is to place emphasis on operational skill, where, time tables, player skill and strict specialized roles is so difficult to manage and train for that it can not be supplied even in small amounts for a reasonably size alliance and that could even be a worst option since it result in a even larger divide between pvp and pve player resulting in even more risk aversion and other stuff.

To see how a mechanic would influence things, you have to push and push and push and figure out the point where "man, most alliances won't be able to do this that well" and that is were the margin of victory lies.

[Grath]

It is not too hard to add fun features that are also necessary into sovereignty system, however it would never be decisive. Decisions are made on things that is SCARCE and where opponents can't casually copy the leaders operation. If it is fun and everyone can do it, it will never "win", at most it can only prevent a stupid loss.


The reason why "superiority" is possible is because it is not available to all players. Well structured, organized and, executed operations are both difficult and not very appealing (the work it takes to make it happen isn't) to a large subgroup in Eve. Quite a few people just want to undock half drunk and fly around randomly, watch things explode and feel like they've done something important and not want a 2nd job in a spaceship military with all its trappings.

If they lose (even worst then they do now), there will be (greater) pressure to pound some skill into those guys and those guys will not have much fun. In the zero sum game that is Eve warfare, every gain by elite pilots is hurting the masses, which out number them. Usually people not interested in improvement are not important in gaming communities, but this is a subscription game and shitplayers far exceed the elite and they are the guys selling plex since they suck to much to make isk, so there is always pressure to cater to them (the n00bs, the bad players) that lets more mindless but time intensive ways of doing things.

Professionalism itself is an escalating factor no different from isk spent or manhours thrown into it when you think of it as a limitation based in psychology.

-------

Strategically, it won't matter unless it is HARD or UNATTRACTIVE, and I MEAN "OMG WHY DO I PLAY THIS @#%$#%@#$" level. If it is cheap fun that can not be escalated to insanity, then alliances can quickly recruit pilots and apply funding for this role and near stalemate occurs.

Lets imagine this new mechanic limits itself to say, ~50 pilots to maintain for a specific small region. This is not too hard and soon both sides will fill this quota of ~50 pilots of reasonable skill and reach near stalemate.

Of course, the logic of the sandbox of course means there is no upper limit on what you can bring, so what could have been done with 100 pilots would soon escalate to 500, then 1000 then insanity. This is because no matter what objectives is set, there is always the other objective of killing the other guy's ships trying for that objective and numbers are always useful for that short of mechanics that teleports players into instances. The other option is to place emphasis on operational skill, where, time tables, player skill and strict specialized roles is so difficult to manage and train for that it can not be supplied even in small amounts for a reasonably size alliance and that could even be a worst option since it result in a even larger divide between pvp and pve player resulting in even more risk aversion and other stuff.

To see how a mechanic would influence things, you have to push and push and push and figure out the point where "man, most alliances won't be able to do this that well" and that is were the margin of victory lies.

what the fuck are you trying to say

[Phineas Freak]

It is not too hard to add fun features that are also necessary into sovereignty system, however it would never be decisive. Decisions are made on things that is SCARCE and where opponents can't casually copy the leaders operation. If it is fun and everyone can do it, it will never "win", at most it can only prevent a stupid loss.


The reason why "superiority" is possible is because it is not available to all players. Well structured, organized and, executed operations are both difficult and not very appealing (the work it takes to make it happen isn't) to a large subgroup in Eve. Quite a few people just want to undock half drunk and fly around randomly, watch things explode and feel like they've done something important and not want a 2nd job in a spaceship military with all its trappings.

If they lose (even worst then they do now), there will be (greater) pressure to pound some skill into those guys and those guys will not have much fun. In the zero sum game that is Eve warfare, every gain by elite pilots is hurting the masses, which out number them. Usually people not interested in improvement are not important in gaming communities, but this is a subscription game and shitplayers far exceed the elite and they are the guys selling plex since they suck to much to make isk, so there is always pressure to cater to them (the n00bs, the bad players) that lets more mindless but time intensive ways of doing things.

Professionalism itself is an escalating factor no different from isk spent or manhours thrown into it when you think of it as a limitation based in psychology.

-------

Strategically, it won't matter unless it is HARD or UNATTRACTIVE, and I MEAN "OMG WHY DO I PLAY THIS @#%$#%@#$" level. If it is cheap fun that can not be escalated to insanity, then alliances can quickly recruit pilots and apply funding for this role and near stalemate occurs.

Lets imagine this new mechanic limits itself to say, ~50 pilots to maintain for a specific small region. This is not too hard and soon both sides will fill this quota of ~50 pilots of reasonable skill and reach near stalemate.

Of course, the logic of the sandbox of course means there is no upper limit on what you can bring, so what could have been done with 100 pilots would soon escalate to 500, then 1000 then insanity. This is because no matter what objectives is set, there is always the other objective of killing the other guy's ships trying for that objective and numbers are always useful for that short of mechanics that teleports players into instances. The other option is to place emphasis on operational skill, where, time tables, player skill and strict specialized roles is so difficult to manage and train for that it can not be supplied even in small amounts for a reasonably size alliance and that could even be a worst option since it result in a even larger divide between pvp and pve player resulting in even more risk aversion and other stuff.

To see how a mechanic would influence things, you have to push and push and push and figure out the point where "man, most alliances won't be able to do this that well" and that is were the margin of victory lies.

i ran this through a google analyzer and it came up with an expertise:

first of all the author is hard (a lot), is also afraid to pound into those guys, therefor feels that as a member of a subgroup he does not get as much fun as he should.
he is quite unsure about his own appearance, although sometimes he himself thinks he is appealing enough to reach out to the world and release the pressure by pushing hard into those suckers that don't need a second job to feel important or be able to afford cheap fun.
he has considered sucking for isk, but too many potential customer are too unattractive or reasonably sized for his needs.
the escalating factors are his limitations based in psychology and his suppressed sexual orientation. he tries to understand what is going on, and started analyzing himself, coming to a lot of confusing and probably wrong solutions.
that, along with being half drunk, the fear of insanity, not reaching the milestones he set for himself and too many manhours invested into killing the guys he secretly wants to blow may lead to an explosion of his inner self soon.

we have a walking time bomb here.
whover it is that broke your heart, give into your true nature, and tell him how you feel about it before it is too late. let him help you. no, let US help you.

[Sa'Shena]

I've been thinking about how Incursions actually seem like a better Sovereignty system than what we have now. The idea that every Constellation you hold would have one HQ ('Staging System') and perhaps give bonuses to the Structures inside of it while there would be designations for other systems that would improve Complexes and Anoms, Mining and Refining, and finally the Vanguard systems that are immediately bordering another Alliances space. For renters it would be bad, since you'd have to buy an entire constellation to get an HQ but it would also mean that the HQ system would be the hardest, with border systems having the lowest HP structures and the other systems with benefits get slightly more.

I'm not sure whether letting the players choose the typing of the systems (allowing the alliance to change the designated objectives and the benefits they offer) would be a good idea but it could work. If you made it so Sov can be fairly easily contested in regions bordering unclaimed or 'hostile' (Since blued alliances would still degrade an otherwise secure system to 'border' status) it would mean having a lot of nearby Blues would actually be penalizing, since it would make your space less secure to hostile sovereignty claims. You'd have one System per constellation that would effectively be a fortress until surrounding Sov was contested. As long as the Constellation's current masters are present you can't claim the Sovereignty, but you could always reinforce the structures within it.

With a concurrent reduction to Supercapitals to bring them more in line with the new Sovereignty system you could help to address the largest complains moaning out of Nullsec. Large blue lists (Which at present are the most secure where two friendly alliances border) and Supercapitals being required for just about any kind of Sov grind (Which would change, since sieges of systems beyond the border wouldn't be claimable until the border system itself was claimed by the invaders and being claimable comes with a decreased amount of HP for the Structures in the vulnerable systems)

[Hexman]

Actually, what makes Sov warfare fun isn't the war itself (while some individual fights can be fun, the war as whole is fucking boring and tedious) or whatever faggotry goes on inside the game.

What makes sov wars FUN is all the sperge, ranting, crying, accusations (of meta gaming, RMT, whatever) and forum porn that go on in Kugu.

Not saying anything about mechanics because that's like having an argument over politics, religion or the great pumpkin.

[bigbritches]

I recall a system in the Dynasty Warriors series where a force's strength in an area was based on how well insulated it was from other forces. Deep in you own territory, your dudes got big bonuses and were more aggressive. On the outskirts, they got only minimal bonuses and were more defensive.

In order to take territory, one had to attack a base area and kill all the red dudes in the area. Once this was accomplished, the opposing force would lose it's claim on that area. In addition, if it was adjacent to one of your own areas, it would then fall under your force's control at the minimum bonus level. If it was not adjacent, it would become neutral/unaligned.

[rankman]

the problem isnt the game its the player base as the only way to win in sov warfare is to make the other side stop logging in by making there gaming boring

[Chipmunk McPaul]

GODDAMNIT PRIPYAT FIX THIS SHITEND OF A COCKTHREAD

[Nicky D]

The problem with sovereignty conflicts is that the opponent will seek to make the fight as boring and draining as possible for the enemy, no matter what the specific mechanics are.

[FC Break]

What if instead of sov level based on time, its based on the military/industry index. That would make it so only active systems are high sov levels making a region attack more possible. And it would prevent alliances holding secure space in areas they don't use. Perhaps scale the ehp of structures to this as well so you could take out lower sov systems with smaller groups. I'm sure there are drawbacks I haven't thought of, but it would be more dynamic and prevent the holding of space you couldn't use allowing smaller groups a chance for a foothold.

[Aeon221]

YAY A THEORY CRAFTIN THREAD, I'MA SHIT IT UP WITH SOME CRAFTY THEORIES.

Sov is based around constellations rather than systems. Planets are where shit gets anchored. Secure X% of planets in a system, it adds to the defense of the constellation hq (the only thing that matters). Control 100% of the systems, the hq is super fucking obnoxious to kill. with high resists and multiple fights. If defenders control just the hq system it's an easy knock out with low resists and one fight. Based on % of constellation controlled rather than number of systems in constellation controlled.

Planets have a thingy anchored that competes for sov. It is destroyed by anchoring ZEE BOMB next to it. ZEE BOMB takes half an hour to go off. The other side has to hack it to take it down -- this is a five minute process, but after the first minute of hacking the bomb countdown is paused for five minutes (giving defenders the ability to punt if they scramble fast enough and gain more time for a bigger gang). ZEE BOMB takes ten minutes to anchor. So the objective of attackers is to defend ZEE BOMB from ZEE HACKERS, and the goal of defenders is to wipe the attackers and defend ZEE BOMB. Anchoring a planet capturing module takes about an hour, and it is vulnerable to shooting while it is being anchored -- yay defense. I guess you could also have Dustfags able to knock out the planet shield or wtfever rp explanation makes the thing unkillable while anchored, so that they have something to do besides teabag one another.

So you've got a couple ways to win: SMASHOP the constellation HQ, or mini gang swarm all the fucking planets in the constellation.

Stations IDGAF how they're managed. I guess if constellation changes hand only one fight is had with them, but if it's held they use the current multi-fight system.

That seem like a fair system? Lol, probs not but who the fuck cares, this is a shitpost in a terribad thread.

[Malcanis]

Dust is the way to make sov fun. When you win planetary sov in a majority of planets, you own the system. And we fight it out in a FPS shooter and get the whole fucking system done one way or another in a day or two at most. I dunno, maybe a spaceships fleet has to ref a TCU or something to mark GAME ON. Then it's secure for 7 days after the FPS part is finally decided.

Advantage: requires minimal logging in to EVE and cockfagging about with dreads and motherships and all that catshit. Free up spaceships EVE for actual genuine boat-violencing.

[Aeon221]

Dust is the way to make sov fun. When you win planetary sov in a majority of planets, you own the system. And we fight it out in a FPS shooter and get the whole fucking system done one way or another in a day or two at most. I dunno, maybe a spaceships fleet has to ref a TCU or something to mark GAME ON. Then it's secure for 7 days after the FPS part is finally decided.

Advantage: requires minimal logging in to EVE and cockfagging about with dreads and motherships and all that catshit. Free up spaceships EVE for actual genuine boat-violencing.

EVE Minimum Requirements:

PS3

[Pvc]

Dust is the way to make sov fun. When you win planetary sov in a majority of planets, you own the system. And we fight it out in a FPS shooter and get the whole fucking system done one way or another in a day or two at most. I dunno, maybe a spaceships fleet has to ref a TCU or something to mark GAME ON. Then it's secure for 7 days after the FPS part is finally decided.

Advantage: requires minimal logging in to EVE and cockfagging about with dreads and motherships and all that catshit. Free up spaceships EVE for actual genuine boat-violencing.

I support this vision of EVE and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

EVE Minimum Requirements:

PS3

vOv cheaper than a supercap fleet

[teds]

my issue, succinctly, is there is nothing CCP can imagine (note, not we can imagine) that makes it easier for wulfpax et al to have an affect, that 2x the neckbeards could not accomplish in less time.

[Zakhodit]

The more things change the more they stay the same.

here Check this shit out.

The game mechanics were different but the arguments are the same. It was fascinating to read through this and find the same predictions, complaints, and shit posts that are on every other SOV/SUPER thread we've had recently.



EDIT: In before some rube gets lost reading thru the 2007 thread and Necro's it with an errant quick reply click.

[Aeon221]

Now I'm turned on by the thought of getting all necrosexual with a thread.

[Zakhodit]

I Double Dog Dare you.

[vexter]

SC are overpowered and have had an effect on how sov warfare is played. If balancing SC is on your radar, its only logical to fix it first, see how sov warfare is without the advantage of the SC, then maybe rethink SOV.

Its my opinion that the SC is so massively overpowered that its impossible to accurately investigate SOV.

[true]

Thread is bad but I think the sole purpose of sov warfare is to make it least fun for one of the sides depending on their pvp prowess. Drain the attacker by making him grind your structures. Drain the defender by having to rep it over and over. And while most major sov grinds happen after dust settles nowdays sometimes it can break the will of either side.

So it's working perfectly if you ask me.

[Nicky D]

Dust is the way to make sov fun. When you win planetary sov in a majority of planets, you own the system. And we fight it out in a FPS shooter and get the whole fucking system done one way or another in a day or two at most. I dunno, maybe a spaceships fleet has to ref a TCU or something to mark GAME ON. Then it's secure for 7 days after the FPS part is finally decided.

Advantage: requires minimal logging in to EVE and cockfagging about with dreads and motherships and all that catshit. Free up spaceships EVE for actual genuine boat-violencing.

I think that's a bit extreme. What about say, a merc corporation, if they control the planet, can deploy a special command center that can light up a cyno planetside in a jammed system? But in order to get that shit going, the aggressor space alliance has to get the non-warp capable battle barge planetside by having some hauler anchor its 20km3 ass beforehand?

[HUN73R]

I support this vision of EVE and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.vOv cheaper than a supercap fleet

rofl imagine how much a superarmor is gonna cost

[Malcanis]

vOv cheaper than a supercap fleet

I hadn't considered it in that light, but yes, you're right. At PLEX-equivalent prices, a properly fitted Aeon is worth (let's say 20 bill?), what? $800 or so. Enough to get yourself a new PS3, plus another one for your sugar-addicted 14-year old cousin so you can bulk up your numbers.

[Pvc]

rofl imagine how much a superarmor is gonna cost

Yeah, it remains to be seen how CCP is going to flog their MT system, but...

I hadn't considered it in that light, but yes, you're right. At PLEX-equivalent prices, a properly fitted Aeon is worth (let's say 20 bill?), what? $800 or so. Enough to get yourself a new PS3, plus another one for your sugar-addicted 14-year old cousin so you can bulk up your numbers.

I have go with this. It would take a huge number of requisite MT items for dusties to be more expensive than a deterrent-sized SC fleet. Of course that's also subject to change with whatever sc "balance," comes down the pipe, but i'm pretty skeptical they can do anything that would seriously damage their effect on Sov warfare without also iterating on sov. mechanics themselves. I can't say that i'm holding my breath for this much-anticipated "winter expansion," in that regard.

[Aeon221]

http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/pos...intrusion-2-0/ Not technically eve related, but in this blog you can get a good idea of the difference between perp devs and ccp, and how an activity bases system could work in eve. Us NEX guys are jizzing all over the forum now because the change means we win perp because we can be doing them 23/7.

I hadn't considered it in that light, but yes, you're right. At PLEX-equivalent prices, a properly fitted Aeon is worth (let's say 20 bill?), what? $800 or so. Enough to get yourself a new PS3, plus another one for your sugar-addicted 14-year old cousin so you can bulk up your numbers.

Bitch it costs way more to fit me out than that.

[Pvc]

http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/pos...intrusion-2-0/ Not technically eve related, but in this blog you can get a good idea of the difference between perp devs and ccp, and how an activity bases system could work in eve. Us NEX guys are jizzing all over the forum now because the change means we win perp because we can be doing them 23/7.

That game is still awful.

[Aeon221]

So is eve. At least in this one the devs aren't sperglords.

[Pvc]

So is eve. At least in this one the devs aren't sperglords.

They're young and excited about the new game, give them time.