Comments


RVRNICSM7 – A New World Order

Null-Sec is the often called end-game of EVE Online. Many pilots have spent their whole life in game within the safe confines of high-sec. The ones who venture towards this no holds barred environment rarely come back, and if they do, re-adapting into high-sec life is a bit awkward. After all, the scars of lawless space will always remain within experienced pilots.

Even though null-sec is a quite memorable experience and a way of life itself within EVE, it doesn’t go without its drawbacks. And this is what I would like to discuss in this piece.


Time For a Sov Revamp

Dominion did not solve the problem of sprawling wealthy alliances holding systems without any real interest in most of the systems. These otherwise unused Systems are currently held because:

1. They contain valuable moons.
2. To form a jump route (bridge and/or cyno).
3. To build a cyno jammer fortress of systems, making invasion difficult.
4. To hurt or threaten another alliance.

Because of these reasons for holding space, nullsec is a collection of giant ol’ boys club of interconnecting blue lists, with a massive barrier of entry for anyone outside it. A barrier that may turn away new pilots, as well as frustrate older pilots who are forced to wander dozens of jumps to get from one pocket of active pilots to another. Under the guidance of CSM 5, CCP sought to change the nullsec landscape, making it more friendly for newer entities, by nerfing jump bridges; reducing jump bridge range and halving the number of bridges per system (having heard stories of alliances rapidly deploying across EVE to crush small entities by way of jump bridge networks).

The desired impact did not occur. A quick trip to any remote nullsec solar system will prove my point – empty systems are still held by large power-blocs. This means that even solar systems which are deemed undesirable by nullsec power-blocs are being kept unused. This is of course one of the main reasons smaller alliances are prevented from transitioning naturally into nullsec.

Structure grinds have become the name of the day for any willing sovreignity holding entity. Then your have the timer issue; you need a coalition large enough to cover as many time zones as there are so you can to successfully hold sov. Sov which you might never make use of.

One of the ideas which I like which has long been proposed by forward thinking players is an occupation based sovereign system.


#Occupy Sov

There are many alliances whose major source of income comes from systems spread out over tens of jumps from their home system, with tons of unused systems in between. Some of them live in NPC nullsec and still hold more sov than many dedicated Sov-Null holders. An occupation based sov system would hurt current major sov holders to the point of making them re-think their long term strategies. It would also help to reduce the sov gorging which wasn’t resolved by Dominion.

An occupation based sov would increase the likability of alliances inviting newer corporations into their ranks and encourage people to move into nullsec. Since the best way to get sov is to actually live there. I recall an old jester’s trek article which precisely addresses this approach, which points to an ingenious sov system which should at least be considered.

Jester’s Trek – tug-o-war

However, it would likely not change the sphere of influence wielded by the powerful blocs for the purpose of control over passive income sources (moon gold). By itself, this is not a complete fix for nullsec, but it could easily be a vital component of one.

This doesn’t mean either that territory shouldn’t be vulnerable to attacks and take overs. But we need look for ways to make Dominion work as intended, even two years after it got released.


In Dreads We Trust

The Dreadnought buff was a buff on paper. Outside of w-space (which is protected from super capitals), it is anything but. Dreadnoughts remain a joke. Out of siege, some battleships out DPS many of these hulking beasts, and are much more versatile than a dread. While in siege, most dreads are nothing but structure-grinding sitting ducks, hungry for capacitor and waiting for their own slaughter – mostly at the hands of super-capitals.

Nobody can deny the need for a ship which, with considerable investment in both skills and modules, should be able to counter a super-capital blob in a cost effective way. Super-capitals don’t need further nerfs, they need proper counters which even poor alliances should reasonably be able to afford. In sci-fi, super weapons have a version of the so called death star exhaust port.

For me, Dreadnoughts should be the key to the weakness of super capitals. Dreads are eclipsed in every way for any given task by super capitals, giving them this role in a well developed, balanced way could be the saving grace of the dreadnought, and by extension, fleet warfare in nullsec. This is what I seek to push for.


Concerning Titan Tracking

I am going to be clear on this one: I am against the Titan tracking nerf. Even though no super-capital powerhouse has chosen to back me, I do not think it is the right solution. Super-Capital ships have suffered enough nerfs and if a tracking nerf is handled in the traditional heavy-handed nerf of CCP, Titans will be turned into mobile star-gates overnight. Nerfs have always held the strong risk of turning ships into useless station decorations, you know – because of the Falcon. In the case of ships that cannot dock, it turns accounts inactive, which is bad for you, me, CCP, and the game in general.

The nerfs that have been paraded on forums are ill conceived. You either have to infinitely nerf the ship tracking to the point of it being detrimental to the value of the ship or fuck with modules and boosters also used by non super-capital pilots. We are talking about a +60 billion ISK hull here with multi-billion top-named modules on them, ships that often spiral into the astronomical price range of 100 billion ISK. Strategic weapons that will, overnight, become obsolete. Titans are mostly alliance wide investments, and nerfs to something with that much sunken investment will have vast and wide ranging impacts on the game.


Closing the Faucet a Bit

What I do propose is to look for ways to discourage alliances from piling tens of super-capital onto a grid. Super-Capital ships and especially Titans should not be able to pile in on top of each other, then stay motionless and magically keep everything at 0 range or near to it (providing benefits like keeping everything in rep range). The solution of a suicidal ramming speed pilot has been suggested before, and simply does not work in game (due to being at zero transversal with a MWD making it the size of a moon – and thus easy pickings).

Right now you are able to pile 100 supers into a 50 cubic kilometers grid. Fourteen kilometer long ships with “their own gravity well”, in close proximity to each other, in staggering numbers. Even from an RP perspective this doesn’t make sense, let alone a game play perspective.

If you bring ten supers into a system and suddenly find one of them out of rep range, this should be the FC’s fault for piling supers. A solution for this should be provided by CCP. Whether in the form of a ramming-specific ship, or more violent bouncing of supers, or simply fixing the clipping problem that allows supers to stack on top of each other.


Moons should be Depletable

Since the latest moon-goo shake up, almost every faction within null-sec has a primary focus of maximizing the number of valuable moons they hold. Empires have risen and fall in the pursuit of the holy elixir.

Technetium, for those of you lucky enough to not be impacted by the pursuit of the vital material, is a key element for the production of Tech 2 items. A secure technetium moon provides a steady stream of moon-goo worth around 7 billion ISK a month. Apart from technetium there are many other valuable moons, but none remotely as valuable as technetium, making these moons the holy grail source of income for null-sec alliances.

The solutions for moon goo have long been debated. The number of suggested solutions number in the hundreds by now. From simple solutions to elaborate mechanics changes. The path to solving moon goo begins with CCP accepting that it is a problem worth solving. One of my goals as a CSM is to get that dev blog that begins with “we’ve heard moon minerals are a problem” and lays out a path to weaning nullsec off this addiction. Having a good portion of the current CSM 6 seats backed by moon holding holding giants isn’t helping either, a trend which might continue given current CSM 7 candidates.

Then there are the pedestrian comments on how these moons are defended. By either the issue of the proliferation of super-capitals on one side or the issue of giant sub-cap blobs on the other. Having a more finite passive income stream is one of the primary ways to indirectly end both of these hated gameplay styles. After all, when the output of a single moon can only top several billions of ISK during its farming lifetime, risking tens or even hundreds of billions in the form of a super-capital or sub-cap fleet becomes illogical for internet spaceship strategists. Moderation if often called out, in this case it should be encouraged.

Yes, Moon minerals drive combat in EVE, but is it the right driver or even the right kind of combat? Can revision improve game play? I hope to convince CCP to review this and come up with solutions that improve the game experience.


Players Before Power-Blocs

Part if not all moon-goo should be featured into PI in one form or another. This would ensure several things: grant long term stability to the market, present current moon-holders with decent competition and level the field for newer alliances to participate in what is currently a far-fetched industrial endeavor, as well as destabilize the strong becoming stronger just because of the mentality of the nullsec landscape.

Right now the wealth of the nullsec riches rain from the top-down. Players fight for moons they’ll never see an ISK of income from. It is the sad reality of EVE Online nullsec life. Most of them fight in the name of a leader they never really met apart form alliance emails and mass voice meetings. Moving part if not all of the moon-goo, an income source controlled by a selected group of individuals, into PI while allowing alliances to tax a wide array of activities could reshape the way we see sov.

These POCO, now tied to players and corporations will bring an excellent venue for small to medium gang PVP, provide industrious players with a decent income and limit the proliferation of moon goo cartels.

A bottom up, rather than top down, direction for strategic capitalization.


On Destructible Stations

I am opposed to destructible stations. Putting aside the assured tear jerking, this is a sure way for CCP Games to lose customers and they certainly know this. I can envision an entity like Pandemic Legion coming up with an “ahead of the curve” tactic and going against smaller entities, just like it happened to Intrepid Crossing when the Legion assaulted their home system.

Destructible stations will also ensure many current nullsec players and entities will move most if not all of their valuable items to NPC space. This goes in detriment to the end game and something I am sure CCP Games is also aware of.

So for trolling purposes, destructible stations are a great idea, unless you are on the receiving end; which would be the case with every non-top of the line sov holding entity.


In Closing – A United EVE

United EVE, which is the official name of my platform, is focused on turning grunts into the most valuable resource a serious alliance could have. Moving the bulk of the generated income to a “from the ground up” approach will do wonders for the game, bring back some decent creed to the normally shunned industrialists, keep PVP alive, and not to mention, provide some leverage to the average Joe to be kept at the front of the mind by any alliance leadership.

This is the reason for which on March 7th, I pledge for your vote regardless what your leaders have “ordered” you to do. I am not for sheep herding votes and I am sure neither are you. The CSM was never meant to be a popularity or leverage contest between power-blocks, but a mechanism from which ideas can be exchanged from the player base to CCP Games and back. Which is exactly what I intend to do.

Any Eve News24 collaborator can attest the great respect I hold towards each and every one of them, regardless of their in-game affiliation. And how easily reachable I am, both in game and out of game. This is something I want to see translated into the Council of Stellar Management and to take back to CCP through the satisfaction of the Players.

My goal is not to represent the interests of any given power-bloc, but to represent the interests of the players for the good of the game. Either be they in a power-bloc or not.

This is our vision, to become the voice of the players; this is the vision of a truly United EVE.

Riverini
CSM Candidate for the United EVE Party
EVE News24

Eve News24 invites you to show your support by liking our CSM thread, it takes less than a minute and every like makes a ton of difference.


Remember to +1 riverini’s CSM Candidacy post at the official EN24 thread.

[spoiler show=”Did we mess up?”]
We want to give you guys the best possible intel, to post as fast as we can confirm it, but Eve being :Eve: is quite confusing. If we messed up with our intel, please contact us directly [email protected], provide the proof of it and we’ll correct it immediately noting the change and bringing the correction on top of the article list.[/spoiler]

If you would like to send intel or contribute, feel free to use the form below:

[spoiler show=”Submit Intel Here”]

[/spoiler]

130 Comments

  1. I just don't know

    That was spot on, you have my vote.

    February 29, 2012 at 6:40 am Reply
  2. PL 4 lyfe

    Some good points some bad…how about you do your job and report how Pl and NC. just got whelped by -A-?

    February 29, 2012 at 6:57 am Reply
    1. prff, waiting on kms to sync so i can press "publish" =__=

      February 29, 2012 at 7:04 am Reply
      1. No one important

        Really? In the past you've posted things like "Fuckton of Goon supers tackled and expected to die. More news soon!"

        February 29, 2012 at 7:21 am Reply
        1. Because I was in the solar system. This time Goons actually showed to save the day.

          February 29, 2012 at 7:27 am Reply
          1. lol

            And by that you mean they showed up to whore on the mails
            ,

            February 29, 2012 at 9:26 am
          2. sup

            http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=12… This is fucking glorious! And doesn't look like goons "saved the day". Gj tho!!!!!

            February 29, 2012 at 11:54 am
          3. bagehi

            Ooooo! A SUPER DIED!

            *happy dance

            February 29, 2012 at 1:08 pm
          4. Rascal

            More than one!

            February 29, 2012 at 1:29 pm
          5. sour

            and then some more 😛

            February 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
          6. Rascal

            So 800 people beat 200? NEWST AT TEN!
            http://dog-net.org/brdoc/?brid=5110

            February 29, 2012 at 1:13 pm
          7. Turbonegro

            butthurt ~hatesblues~ detected

            February 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm
          8. auouymous

            Isn't one super equal to 100 subcaps? 800 BS cost 150bil, 31 supers cost 600bil, who brought the blob? Cry harder PL fan boy!

            February 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm
          9. Rascal

            Hoooold the fuck up, one super equal to 100 subcaps? Lol.

            And I am not a fan boy of either side, just pointing out the obvious cause for this result.

            February 29, 2012 at 2:19 pm
          10. Jarod

            7 Supers dead. Newsworthy anyday!

            February 29, 2012 at 3:46 pm
          11. No one important

            Still waiting on article…working hard to spin this one, eh?

            February 29, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    2. eat shit

      lol

      February 29, 2012 at 7:06 am Reply
    3. Imigo

      Translation: "This is an interesting article, and I'ma let you finish, but PL and NC. welping fleets is the best news of all time."

      February 29, 2012 at 7:51 am Reply
      1. ahha, pretty much this is how i read it.

        February 29, 2012 at 8:06 am Reply
        1. Quebber

          Destructable stations would have to go hand in hand with reduced build cost/time and in my opinion would liven up 0.0, no more hiding out in stations.

          Show me a death star that can hit a cruiser? no you can't Titans were never meant to be able to fight subcaps, the problem is they can do it with impunity, they can not be jammed, damped, disrupted Titans need to be nerfed.

          February 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm Reply
      2. Cynic

        He doesn't wait when it's a CFC fleet that's whelped. Oh wait…he still mad.

        February 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm Reply
    4. : :DDD

      He must speak before with his friend nc/pl, for see how write it, for give them a hero story, instead the usual, "SUPERSDOWN NOOBS"

      WAITING MOD ON ^^^

      February 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm Reply
    5. Rascal

      "Whelped by -A-"

      Heh. -A- and 650 of their friends.
      http://dog-net.org/brdoc/?brid=5110

      February 29, 2012 at 1:15 pm Reply
      1. sour

        oh yeah? and wheres PL's friends please? oh wai…they r in the other killmails lol

        February 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm Reply
    6. Please!

      NC? who cares, they are the poster boy for a leg humping alliance, leg humped Evoke in Provi, Raiden, PL since then, never have they been able to stand alone they lost cause PL or who ever they are leg humping this week told them to.

      February 29, 2012 at 3:10 pm Reply
  3. Anonymouse

    Going from the bottom up is a good idea, not only for things like moons and sov, but also the new player experience. Everything in Eve starts with a single player making a choice to do something… Let the new player feel this from the very moment they come out of warp, and don't let them into the rest of the game until it has been tattoo'd on some part of them. Teach them mechanics, teach them about pvp (not just the ship to ship kind), and teach them enough about the other professions they will come up against or do. As it scales up, teach them about working with other players, and culminate all this with a large fleet battle against a suitably large target. That's when you let them out of the training simulator and say… 'Ah good, you've completed your basic training… Welcome to New Eden…'

    February 29, 2012 at 6:59 am Reply
    1. Please!

      What the hell are you talking about?!? don't you know PL and pets got their supers spanked?

      February 29, 2012 at 3:16 pm Reply
      1. Anonymouse Supporter

        Looks like a new approach to the new player experience to me. Keep them away from the real action for a little bit by tossing them into a 'simulator' and then let them graduate into the rest of Eve. Lets them get enthusiastic about the game before they meet the bitter old vets who will sour their opinion.

        March 1, 2012 at 7:33 pm Reply
  4. CFC_Guy

    While you wasted your time on this a titan and quite a bit of PL supers were killed 😀

    February 29, 2012 at 7:03 am Reply
    1. HR4Ever

      No one cares, supers die everyday.

      February 29, 2012 at 10:01 am Reply
      1. He who was there

        In a blob, they don't.

        Also PL does never lose supers. Only players of supers that were kicked but not yet fully out of Alliance :-)

        February 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm Reply
  5. Dude

    You express many sensible positions, you have my vote.

    I think you get the Dreadnought issue spot on. Titans and Supercarriers shouldn't be nerfed to high hell, they ARE the endgame, they are worth tens of billions of ISK, what's needed is a counter. The way the counter system should work is like this: Supercapitals are ships that at least RP-wise are epic in their use, and change the course of fleet fights, they sould be the counter to subcapital blobs (Titans should get some form of AoE attack back for this function). To prevent Titans and Supercarriers from becoming excessively powerful in relation to their ISK cost (and especially when in supercapital blob fleets), Dreadnoughts should be the counter, dealing bonus damage to massive ships like SCs and Titans. In turn, to prevent Dreadoughts from being OP, subcapitals should counter Dreadnoughts. There, you have an effective three-way triangle.

    I also respect your desire to make EVEs mechanics and gameplay features consistent with a storyline, and consequntly, any such changes to that gameplay should be justifiable storyline-wise to prevent utterly stupid, nonsensical (in terms of storyline) changes/balanecs, i.e. like removing drones from Supercarriers (they should have nerfed the SC EHP even more rather than take drones from them).

    Also, super-duper agree that clumps of Titans which violate the rules of physics should not be allowed in EVE, it would further help balance the role of the Titan on the battlefield (i.e. Titan overkill, bringing too large a blob of Titans ultimately becomes detrimental).

    The only thing I disagree with you is on destructible stations. I understand your reservations against this idea, but to be consistent with the storyline, and the whole purpose/fiction of a null security space, where player-made empires have control and power limited only by the powers of other players(there's no security in NULL SECURITY space, if you want that, go to highsec :P), then there DOES need to be some way to destroy those stations, or at the very least, to incur some damage to those that will not defend them.

    AAA is infamous for their retreat and return tactics, but whenever such scorched earth techniques were used in history, it ALWAYS resulted in damage to the territory that was subjected to that scorched earth policy. There needs to be some system of accountability here for the actions (scorched earth) done by some. It should not be a zero-risk tactic that can be used s casually.

    February 29, 2012 at 7:15 am Reply
    1. I really appreciate your feedback.

      February 29, 2012 at 7:26 am Reply
      1. Anonymouse

        What if this was resolved with multiple levels of station destruction? First, the services are disabled. If not repaired after a period (a few days maybe?), they become destructable, removing those services from that station until replaced (expensive). Once all services are destroyed, the station itself becomes vulnerable. Once it's vulnerable, you assault the shields (rf), armor (rf) and finally hull (rf). Once structure is reinforced, the internal power source of the station becomes visible and the attacker can set off a chain reaction that destroys the station and it's contents by hacking the power core. At any point in this long journey, the defender can repair things or evac their belongings somewhere safer.

        I would approve of this IF: multiple stations per system were allowed and stations were disconnected from holding sov

        February 29, 2012 at 8:00 am Reply
        1. Imigo

          This is pretty much where CCP are at with the concept, it's just dealing with player assets trapped in the "wreck" of the station and whether players could still access them that is unclear as yet.

          February 29, 2012 at 8:09 am Reply
          1. BETA BABY

            Amazingly a decent idea… Wrecked stations lining eve, multiple in some critical systems; even the chance to kill at the wrecks when the occational pilot returns to scoop his gear. I'm a huge opponent ot players losing their assets merely for vacationing at any length; as clearly Riv is as well. Granted, like POS blocks, I assume we'd have time.

            February 29, 2012 at 9:20 am
          2. Anonymouse

            Anything that encourages players to keep in contact with their fellow players is a good thing. If you think you're going to be gone over a month, move your stuff to a station that can't get blown sky high or leave it in a friend's hands so he can evac it if someone starts down the road to outpost destruction. Anyone who can't move their stuff in the long period of time that a station takes to pop should lose their stuff. Sorry, that's Eve.

            March 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm
  6. Imigo

    The first thing to consider when looking at possible changes to EVE is that designing for emergence is difficult. It's difficult like space is big, REALLY big.

    Making a change with a desired outcome in mind can have an effect on a whole pile of things that were not intended. The (original) anomaly nerf is a perfect example of a change that was supposed to do certain things and did pretty much exactly the opposite. Even though they've fixed that now with the "ISK/HP" formula, players are hesitant to invest in infrastructure like they were before knowing what happened in the past.

    So with that in mind, changing sov in any way might have the desired effect, but it might (and it's in fact highly likely to) have an entirely different and undesirable effect. It's best to make small tweaks and see how they pan out rather than wholesale changes (Dominion anyone?).

    "Players fight for moons they’ll never see an ISK of income from."

    This is true, and if they are not seeing any benefit, whether direct or indirect, then they are in a bad alliance. I've been in poorly run alliances and I've been in excellently run alliances and a key difference is the distribution of wealth. Alliances that distribute alliance wealth among the members do well and thrive, those that do not struggle and eventually fail. This is a part of emergence that I see CCP having got pretty much about right.

    Dreads are pretty damn cool since the changes and are being used a lot more now from what I've seen. I'd be pretty happy if they got better again, but I don't know that it's particularly necessary.

    I'm not running for CSM again this year because of RL being super busy and I can't make the required commitment, but I'm still, as always, eager to discuss game mechanics for hours.

    February 29, 2012 at 7:43 am Reply
    1. Null-Sec revamp is a pretty hard to tame beast. Still am not afraid to stand for what I believe.

      I always appreciate your comments Imigo and this one is no exception.

      Regarding the good/bad alliance comment, the stark reality is most alliance give the ship reimbursement program and the ratting space for granted as the "reasonable" trade off for their pilots service. Shamefully a lot of pilots content with these two things simply because they don't know any better.

      Go on and ask your ally leader for some moon-goo or reaction chain to sell at a good margin and should you get something else than a "fuck off" let me know which alliance are you to switch myself to it.

      Have you even "handled" the ripe of what you once fight for? do you have a stash of Tech or Prom in your hanger? i don't think so.

      Emergence? am sorry that's there is a big difference between being frugal and miserly. But still, its the choice of every pilot to fly under the banner they feel confortable with and am ok with that.

      What i feel needs to change is the fact that right now a small elite gets to handle.

      Heist and backstabbing, thats part of the harsh nature of the sandbox, but i firmly believe wealth should spread from the ground up.

      February 29, 2012 at 8:17 am Reply
      1. Imigo

        Warning: Two part post coming up due to system limitations

        The thing is that not everybody wants to run things. It's one hell of a chore to balance the books, fuel the towers (for JBs, cyno jammers/beacons, staging towers etc), handle hundreds of reimbursement requests, decide on the most effective fleet doctrine (and handle logistics to supply the ships for them), and do all those tedious things that need to be done to keep an alliance running. So if you ask me whether I mind that I can't just say "Hey, can I get some direct income from those moon goo towers" without getting an answer of "fuck off', of course I don't mind because the income from those towers goes into running those towers, paying for any ships that I lose in PvP, paying for maintaining sov in strategic systems AND paying people who do the shitty jobs that I sure as hell don't have the time to do but need to be done.

        No, I don't have a personal stash of tech, but what I do have is a large stash of ISK that I have been able to build up because my alliance members share in the alliance wealth. In considering this game as mulitplayer from the ground up I am able to scale my income up based on how many people enjoy being in the alliance I'm in (ie, my main source of income is trade in various forms, and lots of grunts having ISK to spend is really good for business).

        TBC

        February 29, 2012 at 9:35 am Reply
        1. Imigo

          If people don't enjoy their experience in any situation they are pretty much free to leave and many do leave alliances for a multitude of reasons, which is down to player choice. Alliance leaders are fools if they ignore the fact that every one of their members has made the choice to be there. In ignoring that fact, they will lose followers and fail, we've all seen it many times.

          Some income takes an individual's efforts, and some require a group's efforts. CCP has outlined a design goal that holding sov in nullsec should be a group activity. Some activities need to require group co-ordination to support this goal, and holding high-end moons is something which fulfills that requirement. Precisely how the income is distributed takes a back seat to this requirement.

          Having that income directly coming from individual activities means that there is more single-player activity in what should be a Massively *Multiplayer* experience. Many MMOs have been criticised for being massively single player experiences (ie lots of people in the same persistent world each having their own single player experience), and EVE is most definitely not guilty of that. What you're proposing would take a step in that direction, hence my advice of caution.

          February 29, 2012 at 9:35 am Reply
      2. i win

        The Alliance we are in corps get good reactions like fullirides etc,granted we buy the tech required at a couple points less then jita and sell back to the alliance the fullirides etc at Jita. Now that's what i call sharing

        February 29, 2012 at 10:59 pm Reply
    2. Qwerty4812

      most of tech money goes into supers and ship SRP. which is essentially players seeing the money, I'm actually fine with tech for GSF if I get my ship replaced for almost free which allows me to pvp more and have fun… or well get thrown into the meatgrinder of titans… either one is ok.. kinda

      February 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm Reply
  7. Random Miner

    Like what I'm hearing, you just keep giving me more of a reason to vote for you. It'll be +3 from me.

    "Players fight for moons they’ll never see an ISK of income from" Yeah, when you got these power blocs (who make up the vast minority of eve, which people tend to forget) RMT'ing billions of isk because of the sheer amount of moons they are draining. Imagine the panic these faceless leaders that players never "really met apart form alliance emails" will go into if they realize such moon goo would be mined by their members, and aside from being able to tax them, the isk will be directly in their member's wallets.

    Null would turn into the player gold mine instead of the alliance gold mine. Making coprs more of a community really, because no man will be beholden to the corp or alliance leader, whether he be kind of a total douche. As long as they do make a way for corps/alliances to make isk off their memebers, there couldn't be any objection that makes sense for this type of idea.

    Vote for Riv everybody, we're the 80% :)

    February 29, 2012 at 7:57 am Reply
    1. Imigo

      "Null would turn into the player gold mine instead of the alliance gold mine. Making coprs more of a community really, because no man will be beholden to the corp or alliance leader"

      This is pretty much the way it is in good nullsec alliances anyway – the ones that use alliance level incomes (eg moons) to line the leader's pockets fail sooner or later.

      February 29, 2012 at 8:07 am Reply
      1. Random Miner

        That may be. Not everyone sets out to be the all controlling lex luther of eve.

        Even those who do horde the money have replacement policies, but this change would still cut out alot of rmt, and i've known many who went to null to make more isk, but in the end they somehow had less then me, their old high sec buddy.

        I keep hearing about how easy it is to make isk in null, well with this change the players who goto null really will be making loads more then me, and once others see the dough, maybe they will goto null too, in a massive good ole' wild west style gold rush. Not saying I will… lol

        February 29, 2012 at 8:25 am Reply
        1. Imigo

          The nullsec RMT cartels are largely in the imagination of tinfoil hat wearers though. There are people that do it, but it's not as across the board as some people would like to think.

          Also, I would bet that your friend who went to nullsec made more ISK than you did, but lost a lot more too. Thing is that he would have had more of an experience with that loss so it works out pretty well.

          February 29, 2012 at 9:04 am Reply
          1. Random Miner

            have had two buddys goto null, and despite months of being there, both of them unsubbed from the constant loss lol. I've known others who thrived relatively, but they can never afford anything, and I've had some ask me for loans. I'm just saying if it's risk and reward, they should be able to have a bit more in their wallet to show for it

            February 29, 2012 at 9:20 am
          2. Imigo

            I guess I've had an entirely different experience from them – being in nullsec has made me super rich (I've never run a moon btw). If they can't afford their losses, they're doing something wrong.

            February 29, 2012 at 9:38 am
          3. Random Miner

            could be, or perhaps ther choices in corps, the one was is FA, and the constant moving at the time cost him countless ships lol, so it may have been wrong corp wrong time

            February 29, 2012 at 10:22 am
  8. nerf dat titan

    MASS LIMIT ON CYNOS!!!!

    February 29, 2012 at 8:12 am Reply
    1. We need more supers death, not cynoes. :)

      February 29, 2012 at 8:24 am Reply
      1. He who was there

        I still wait on an explanation how dreads are supposed to kill a supercap blob of 80 supers (which is not even the biggest number raiden. fields with its allies when they want to abort fighting).

        And no, nobody cares about a single or very few supers that get caught somewhere, they can and are being killed by bc's and T3 ships, as just happened to nc. and pl. But a super blob is something that has no counter. Dreads can't break it as long as you need to have 80 dreads immobilized for 5 minutes to get down one single titan in the blob.

        February 29, 2012 at 9:16 am Reply
    2. cyno alts

      … would just lead to more cyno alts lighting at the same time. This wouldn't change cap mobility at all. It would raise the cost of ozone though.

      February 29, 2012 at 9:15 am Reply
  9. chaky

    i'm all into dread buff. its stupid that eve has super strong fighter platform, but doesn't have any equal turret/missile platform (except titan, but titans have slightly different roles).
    either it could be new superdread (small titan, just like mothership is big carrier) or just current dreads get buffed.
    personally i'd prefer supercapital-sized dread, for new ship is always good.

    February 29, 2012 at 8:21 am Reply
    1. Small alliance grunt

      That would just lead to more super cap proliferation. Large alliances would simply drop 30 or however many are required with their moms and titans. Smaller groups wouldn't be able to afford that many or to lose them in serious numbers so it just gives large alliances another tool.

      If there is going to be a anti-super ship it should be small, like a destroyer or cruiser. It would be t2 and could fit either a new weapon or more likely citadel torps, in a new launcher perhaps. Make them expensive with that a welp fleet isn't really viable but cheap enough that even smaller groups can get a good number on the field. This would give a good counter and for supers to always have sub-cap support.

      To go with this it might be necessary to make loosing a super less painful. I realize that sounds stupid but if they are easier to kill then no one will use them, people will stop logging in and account numbers will drop.

      February 29, 2012 at 5:11 pm Reply
  10. Dreads and PI

    Yeah I am starting to agree with more of your views. Two things though

    Dreads don't see a lot of action right now because they only do two things, shoot structures, and put DPS on super carriers and nothing else. Maybe if they had one other role than just being industrial wrecking equipment they'd get out more. As a dread pilot the two things that scare the hell out of me when going siege green are that…

    1. A titan shows up and decides to start an impromptu game of spin the bottle with his doomsday as we slowly get picked off by their one shot blap cannon.

    2. Hostile subcaps flood into local and our FC decides, "Ooooooooooh no! Everyone warp off! Safe Up! Safe Up! Get in the POS shields! … whew everyone safe? Good … oh yeah the dreads with 3 minutes left on their timers … sorry dudes, well good luck trying to hit 500 subcaps with your comically slow guns! Whelp GF in local I guess."

    Now on to moon goo.

    I like the idea of moving moon gold to PI. Moons are held by a handful of alliance leaders, while an alliance's PI output is entirely based on how many people it has doing PI (because the amount of planets a person can have is skill limited). This puts the income in the hands of the player rather than just whatever rich alliance leader owns your space.

    Granted if you do this you are going to have to make nullsec (and lowsec) planets WAAAAAAAAY better than highsec planets. I'll be damned if some highsec carebear makes the same amount of isk as someone who lives in dangerous space, which reminds me, nerf incursions.

    February 29, 2012 at 8:33 am Reply
    1. Thodoros

      +1 from me as well brother.
      I still think the Titan should not be able to do the amount of damage is doin right now.
      And yes i am of the same opinion that the Dreadnaughts should be the super capital killer ship ingame. We need more balance capitals so we can see the capital fights of the old days.
      Fights like this is what i want; http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=38

      February 29, 2012 at 10:23 am Reply
  11. Former NC

    This is how I read the article:

    1. Did Riverini really write this? No broken English… why can't you get someone to check these articles more often? This was actually a good read, even if you don't have my vote.

    2. Riv owns a Titan alt. That's possibly the only real reason you'd want to not nerf them. Although I do admittedly support a Dread alteration(but we all know if a dread becomes a super killer, it'll suddenly be able to kill smaller shit too) as a potential solution to this.

    Now, show me on this doll where the bad Mittani man touched you.

    February 29, 2012 at 9:45 am Reply
    1. Not Bad

      Rofl.

      I had the very same thought. I said to myself "I've only seen one typo so far so he either didn't write this or he actually proofed it before posting.

      I would have to support Riv on the Titan Tracking bit. I hate em too but if you take that away they become giant DD guns and jump bridges. They would have no other purpose. Yes dreads are still not as effective as they probably should be. And I agree that them becoming a super-killer would just make them the next blob tool (since everyone has a dread thats been collecting dust in a hanger or has only seen structure shoots in the past few years).

      Riv, amend your platform with a d declaration to be less biased. (read: CFC)

      February 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm Reply
      1. Zeroniss

        Where was the typo? I'll sort it out. *Manic OCD kicking in*

        February 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm Reply
    2. DRF is fun

      Dread +200% dmg bonus vs Super caps

      February 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm Reply
      1. Rascal

        Oh geez, thats gonna work. Make the ship which costs about 95% less hit equally hard or harder than a titan. That sounds like balance to me.

        How about instead giving dreads/carriers a specific module for a flat, say 5%, reduce in effectivity of all modules on the titan. Make it have diminishing returns when stacked, up to 10-15% max.

        So with the appropriate capital ship fleet you can make it easier to kill a titan/make it hit less hard when it does hit.

        February 29, 2012 at 1:23 pm Reply
      2. auouymous

        Add a BS or capital version of force recon ships that are able to ewar supers. Problem solved.

        February 29, 2012 at 2:32 pm Reply
    3. Zeroniss

      Just in response to your questions:

      1. Yes, he did. I'm just the proofreader. I made a few suggestions, but mostly they were brutally shot down. Riv has his convictions and power to him for sticking to his guns. I've said it before: He is very intelligent, people just fail to realize this when things get lost in the transition between languages.

      2. His stance on Titans was one he knew he would get flak for. Bear in mind that at the end of the day the Titan pilot is a paying customer too, and has as much right to having his interests looked after as the rest of us. Stuff needs doing to the capital class in general, but it should be to bridge the gap between subcap and effective entry level capitals designed to kill other capitals. That way Titans will still be used, but they will have to be used a lot more warily. (That last part is my interpretation of what I feel Riv was trying to say, but I could be very wrong so just ask him about it directly!)

      February 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm Reply
      1. He who was there

        Titans (or supercap blobs in general, since it's non-existent that you have 40 titans on the field and 0 moms) are a non-trivial problem.

        I am strongly in favor of a nerf, but I can't say what exactly the nerf should be. I absolutely see that they must have a role a job and a certain value for their price. I also don't demand a nerf such that supercap blobs can always be killed by say 500 welpcanes (and I'm a goon saying this, mind you).

        However from Diagoras' stats everyone knows that theres more and more supercaps and far more are being built than destroyed. It is very important to be absolutely clear on that. It means simply that whatever the situation today is, it will be worse tomorrow. Also from Diagoras' numbers you can see that there are more inactive titan pilots than titans killed last year. Basically that means that it's more effective to bore a (titan) player to no longer log in than to destroy his titan.

        It is absolutely clear from these facts that a titan blob simply is too powerful. Something's gotta give, because there won't be less supers tomorrow. It is clear that those with supercap supremancy and those that are absolutely reliant on their supercap blobbing ability fight any nerfs. Yet, those ships are clearly imbalanced since they stack too well with each other and can force multiply each other. And yet, they should not be rendered useless.

        Quite frankly, I'm fine with either nerfing titan tracking or giving a better counter in another ship class (ie. dreads, but not necessarily. How about a new kind of capital killing torpedo & bomber ship that so many other space sim games do?). But a change of the status quo of today is long overdue, especially since the last titan nerf (doomsday no lock on subcap to prevent dictor/support one-hitting by titans) was dodged by tracking titans (who can refit armor tank within seconds via another nearby titan if required) immediately.

        February 29, 2012 at 2:58 pm Reply
        1. anonymous

          Everything in Eve stacks to well together whether it be 600 maelstroms or 40 titans or 6 jamming ships jamming out entire logistics fleets.

          February 29, 2012 at 6:42 pm Reply
        2. guest

          I wonder if preventing or delaying (say, 5 mins) in-combat fitting changes could be just what's needed.

          So, if half a dozen titans commit to combat in their tracking fits, then they commit to combat IN tracking fits.

          This means a reasonable blob of suicide dreads (that cost a lot less) would make a significant impact on that combat.

          February 29, 2012 at 7:07 pm Reply
      2. Former NC

        With you around, I feel more confident that EN24 can reach some truly epic highs. Thanks for the feedback, most insightful.

        February 29, 2012 at 8:16 pm Reply
        1. Zeroniss

          You overstate my abilities sir, but I am grateful for the praise none-the-less. :)

          February 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm Reply
    4. INIT to WINIT

      Riverini DOES NOT have a titan. If he did, he woulda used it as a probing ship in one of lucian James' fleets already.

      February 29, 2012 at 11:16 pm Reply
  12. HR4Ever

    Despite the fact that I think Riv is a fat fuck failing from free forms of objective journalism, this rant for votes makes a lot of sense. Therefor Riv went from -20 to -19.

    February 29, 2012 at 9:59 am Reply
  13. Foxy

    On destructible outposts.. The idea of assets being moved to NPC stations is just stupid. Instead the destroyed outpost should leave behind a wreck that can not be killed and can be opened by anyone to access their own assets in the destroyed outpost. They could board ships or take items out of the wreck, but not place anything in it once taken out. The outpost could be rebuilt by the sovereignty holder for ~ 5-10% of the amount of items needed to be poured into an outpost egg. This way there would be less outposts and the sovereignty holder, if not holding a conquerable station, could simply rebuild one outpost for themselves in a useful location, or more if they deem the investment worth it. Also, wrecking an outpost should not simply be an option. The current conquering of an outpost should be replaced by wrecking them, while conquerable stations would remain indestructible.

    February 29, 2012 at 10:22 am Reply
    1. auouymous

      NPC stations in lowsec should also be destructible and automatically rebuilt by the NPC faction within a week. Now all of the lowsec entities who propose destructible outposts can be counter attacked and lose their assets. Oh wait, this would negatively impact everyone who wants destructible outposts.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm Reply
    2. Oro

      coming from a place of complete ignorance where SOV systems are concerned. What is wrong with the idea of instead of making stations destructible, make them invade able, Once you've went through all the hoops and timers to get the shields and stuff down, you have to land dust marines on the station to fight for ownership. owner also gets access to all the loot on station..just an idea, prolly not well though out but just 2 cents.

      February 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm Reply
      1. A 0.0 Dweller

        Well if the winner got all the loot then no one would keep stuff in stations which I don't think is healthy for 0.0. Also we haven't seen how DUST will actually work much less if it will work. Think about PL or which ever space boogie man you want, running a merc clan and hitting station after station just to grab the loots they hold.

        February 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm Reply
  14. plexforceone

    Nothing about incursions, wardecs, missionrunning, faction warfare, no specifics on ship balance, and obvious mouthpiece with the "no Titan tracking nerf". As if any educated player doesn't see that you are in an active alliance that fights alongside the three most notorious super users.

    Mittani's getting my vote because he's already proven he is nonbiased and isn't functionally useless.

    February 29, 2012 at 10:23 am Reply
  15. Akrasjel Lanate

    Interesting and a resonable article

    February 29, 2012 at 10:29 am Reply
  16. nul sec indy

    Just an idea on the "move all moon mining to PI" suggestion. Maybe create something like "moon infrastructure" (or MI for a lack of something better}. Keep the materials mined at moons, but change the way they are extracted, to something more like PI, so you keep the different material still separate and you now have a new skill set players interested can work on. Also if CCP so chooses, they can still keep it nul sec only without changing anything to PI. this will also move moon mining to the player base, instead of alliance base. Some options here are: link it to the customs office, or even back to an orbiting POS.

    February 29, 2012 at 10:51 am Reply
  17. Gentlemen

    i love the idea of #Occupy Sov <3

    VOTE 1# RVRNICSM7

    February 29, 2012 at 11:00 am Reply
  18. the whole moon goo system needs to be overhauled…. all moons should contain varying amounts of all moon goo…. some of course will have higher concentrations of techniteum and r64's than others but all should contain some small amount of it. this would allow all null sec alliances build up a t2 construction program.

    this combined with the occupy your sov idea posted above would make null sec a better place for all

    February 29, 2012 at 11:01 am Reply
    1. it would add value to all systems in null sec and help justify the cost of claiming sov in lower quality systems.

      February 29, 2012 at 11:02 am Reply
      1. also remove the restriction of only one outpost per system as this would allow alliances build up "trade hub systems" and "industry hub systems" in null sec

        February 29, 2012 at 11:05 am Reply
  19. grunt

    Why do we not have capital ship tugs?

    February 29, 2012 at 11:25 am Reply
  20. Silver

    Very good ideas you have published there. I like the approach that CSM is an idea forwarding entity as there are many good ideas floating around in the community.

    A major problem i see in "bottom Up" money movement (I really like the idea) is the limited ability of corporations and alliances to raise this money. You can tax your corpmembers but that only charges their bounty if they do Ratting at all. Especially PI jumps to my mind in that case the player can pull out a lot of money if he invests the time to do it. But in order to GET something from this as corporation or alliance, you need to do it on trust based deliveries/donations.

    If you are running a reimbursement program you have a lot of paper work not many people are willing to do (thanks god there are some out there). We are playing a space ship game placed far in the future and we are not able to have some tools which allows us to define criteria when someone gets a discount on something. (lost ship in pvp -> option to "buy" a new ship from corp/alliance stocks)

    Some claim that touching the alliance / corp interfaces will only effect a few people but in reality it effects everyone in the corp. If those leaders had the proper tools at hand it would make life easier for everyone, increasing the abilities of the community.

    Shiny new ships are good, but better tools for management would be awesome!

    February 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm Reply
    1. Rol Dude

      PI is taxable too (POCO import/export taxes)

      February 29, 2012 at 1:54 pm Reply
  21. Somedude

    Bring me news on how PL NC. Got owned please ta

    February 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm Reply
    1. Rascal

      By a force four times bigger. (Y)

      February 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm Reply
      1. Somedude

        yes but how did the fight start how come they lost so much how come there meany spy's failed them lol

        February 29, 2012 at 1:31 pm Reply
  22. I fap 2 goatse

    Riv, your contributions to the eve community are far greater than any of the other CSM candidates. There are only a few places the eve community turns to for news and updates on the politics and going ons of their favorite game, two come to mind; kugu and en24. While your site is certainly prone to biases, what news agency isn't? EN24 is certainly no fox news.

    While I may not agree with everything you are proposing, I do agree with the bulk of it. I find myself asking, what the fuck has the Mittani done for the eve community as a whole? The first thing that comes to mind is him and his goons fucking the oxytope market like a 20 dollar whore. On behalf of all gallente capital and supercapital pilots, and the carebears in their rorqs, and as a pilot who wants ships that cost 100bn isk to be worth the investment, you sir, have my vote over that faggot mittani

    February 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm Reply
    1. No one important

      So now the CSM is an award to be given for community service? I'd rather have a customer advocate, thank you.

      This isn't some high school sports award; it's a business role.

      February 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm Reply
      1. Iwonder

        I hear what you are saying and I too like most of Riv's stuff but the bottom line is hes never lead anything in EVE and besides the no leadership skills, it seems like most of the other candidates either look down their noses at him or outright hate him. So I ask myself wonld he be effective, would he lead a group to these goals?

        February 29, 2012 at 3:23 pm Reply
    2. Townsend Harris

      Riverini also forgets to mention that while the CSM is a part of the development process, they don't actually get to tell CCP Devs what to do, how to do it, when to do it by and so on.
      The Mitani was really the first person on the CSM who seemed to have any idea what the CSM's function is, namely a SAN check to CCP's ideas. And even if the CSM says 'NO WAI!" CCP can still go ahead and do whatever they want..

      February 29, 2012 at 1:35 pm Reply
  23. I fap 2 goatse

    Riv you don't have my vote, but your mustache does.

    February 29, 2012 at 12:46 pm Reply
    1. [youtube wQl9GgCnBnU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQl9GgCnBnU youtube]

      February 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm Reply
  24. zef

    Agree with the Destructible outposts… its a bad idea,

    maybe make it so that if you have held a station for 6month'ish you could self destruct it….

    and regarding sov, the occupation sov sounds like a bad idea, think of entities as CVA etc.

    Actuarly agree 100% with your dread & Supercapital arguements.

    Depletable moons…. nah, though, tech nerf yes please.

    February 29, 2012 at 12:55 pm Reply
    1. Rascal

      But the point of destructible outposts is to remove the choice of blueballing in one system only to assault from the same one only hours later when it is your own prime.

      If there were destructible outposts, the wars would become less timezone oriented and force most of the alliances to have to broaden their reach into all timezone players.

      Yeah.

      February 29, 2012 at 1:26 pm Reply
      1. zef

        uhh… no?

        Destructible outposts = fewer stations in null = less areas for people to live comfy (stations = comfy, POS = not comfy) = less people in nullsec = bad for eve.

        also, i fail to see how destructible outposts would mean less timezone orientation,

        February 29, 2012 at 2:18 pm Reply
        1. Rascal

          You can blueball the enemy TZ and they can do it to you in theirs. Killing stations would force you to either have a presence in the TZ or lose your station.

          And "being comfy in stations" makes for a better nullsec? Do you do nullsec PI or moon mining or something?

          I mean, come on. That is way worse for EVE and nullsec than people actually having to fight for their safety zone.

          February 29, 2012 at 6:19 pm Reply
          1. zef

            they still gotta fight for the system… if they dont defend the system, well, there is still a station, they just cant use it,

            for people using pi or moon mining stations arent very important.

            yes, people should fight for their homes, that is good, but if they loose? eventuarly only the big people got stations and only the rich can rich can afford to throw up new stations as the new people or returning people to null wouldnt take the risk,
            it would simply not be worth the risk when it is so easily destructable,
            that would mean that fewer people in the end would be in null which means fewer people out there fighting which means its bad for null.

            March 1, 2012 at 7:27 am
          2. Rascal

            Having less stations does in no way mean less people in nullsec. Do you think people go to nullsec to sit in stations?

            And with the current style, you can just kite timers/ninja defend untill its in your TZ. Which is absolutely retarded.

            March 1, 2012 at 8:30 am
  25. right

    no worries people by weekend he will post battle report

    February 29, 2012 at 2:03 pm Reply
  26. Nullsec Denizen

    Oh for the love of God. I may actually be leaning towards this guy. I live in null but a lot of what Riv is saying is what I would say. Too much in fact that I can't continue to ignore that he might make a good choice. No matter what happens with the vote, the CSM needs to maintain the relatively unified approach that was begun by CSM6. Riv – I think you would make a decent member and have some good thoughts. But will you be the rogue who divides the CSM or be able to work with the others to find common ground? Because I'm sure CCP would be happy to have the disunity of past CSMs return.

    February 29, 2012 at 2:13 pm Reply
    1. Nullsec Denizen

      Dreads – since you brought them up, let me throw this idea at you. I agree, useless for much of anything but structure grinds and they are often more hassle than they are worth given the inherent vulnerability of being in siege. You're 100% correct that supers don't need more nerfing. In fact, the last nerf was overkill. The need is in an offset not a nerf and CCP took the easy way rather than fixing the super cap issue by also fixing the dread issue. I believe that dreads should be the anti-supercap ship of choice. The drake blob of capitals. Let them keep their ability to siege and grind structure, but lets also do the following: give them a mini doomsday weapon. On its own this weapon would be the equivalent of 5% of a Titan doomsday, so not really scary from a lone ship. But here's the twist: create a mod that allows dreads in the same squad to effectively double their damage. Thus a squad of 10 dreads would have the same DD capability of a Titan. This creates an entirely new and very real role for dreads, but also requires coordination in fleet structure to ensure the benefit is achieved. But in the end it creates a counter to supers rather than the mindless nerfing that CCP is prone to do.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm Reply
  27. Capt. Obvious

    The CSM HAVE NO SAY ON HOW THE GAME IS CREATED AND/OR MODIFIED!!! This is from CCP: "There is no explicit power behind any player-initiated legislation approved by the CSM."

    Wake the hell up… Riverini is dying for your votes so the man along with many others tells you great things of change but in reality its all BS. The CSM hold NO REAL POWER!!

    February 29, 2012 at 2:41 pm Reply
    1. CHUCK NORRIS

      APPROVED

      February 29, 2012 at 11:23 pm Reply
  28. auouymous

    Just add a new type of bounty-less incursion only dropping loot and salvage that continuously spawns in ALL low population systems. The difficulty of the incursion would be based on the type of moons. Now it would be difficult to own that tech moon in the middle of nowhere if the system is never used and you can't cyno in to pickup the moon gold. Alliances would have to live near their moons, problem solved. Jump bridges and cyno generators also wouldn't work in low population systems due to the incursions, another problem solved. And what about thos supers jumping across the galaxy? Hard to light a cyno in the middle of nowhere (read: incursed system) to move your capital fleet, problem solved.

    Now you'd have more rats for 0.0 alliances to farm and those who don't like farming or couldn't farm enough of the incursions would have to invite more carebears to live in their space.

    One simple solution solving every problem.

    February 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm Reply
  29. BLM grunt

    It must be nice to have your own "news site" where you can pour out as much propaganda as you like…

    February 29, 2012 at 3:03 pm Reply
    1. -a- bluelist fags

      if u dont like it then dont read it dipshit

      February 29, 2012 at 8:17 pm Reply
  30. CnC

    Make Titan's and Motherships the side of a Small POS shield, with appropriate bump mechanics.

    Make repair range check to the center of a ship model, not the zero point on the edge of the model.

    Improve Titan jump range from center of model to compensate for the obvious /facepalm that would occur if the above change went through.

    Problem solved?

    February 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm Reply
    1. CnC

      side = size*

      Edit would be nice…

      February 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm Reply
  31. Jarasis Par

    I thought it was very well thought out and showed this is more than a vote for me because I have a popular news site. Totally agree with Super nerfing. Personally I thought the elimination of the logoffski was pretty much nerf enough as these ships now had to deal with an element of much increased risk they did not have before. Note to CCP, if you nerf a ship into oblivion, they will not be used at all….then what's the point?

    I'll be honest. I had misgivings about both yourself and this site for turning what is supposed to be a news site into a a personal platform for an election however, if one's notoriety is pretty much based on the association with said website…I suppose one has little choice if he wants to get elected. The ideas our sound and I, for one, am listening.

    February 29, 2012 at 3:49 pm Reply
  32. Ignatius Hood

    Riv,

    Your Platform is solidifying quite nicely. :) Everything you've said in this article and past articles about your CSM candidacy is well reasoned and concise. Some areas you do lack some specifics but that is to be expected given the variable nature of this game and the complexity of some of its issues. What I really like is that you've build a stance on all of the 'dead elephants' in the room and you have proposed fixes for them all. I'd really enjoy a chance to discuss the n00b issues you brought up in a previous post in more detail becuase I have some solutions that might help. I tried to post some thoughts here but the site ate the comment last time. :(

    February 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm Reply
  33. cfc4life

    i think you are missing a point not all the alliances rmt there tech away some of us use it to keep corp dues low, pay sov bills, have a great srp system sub and caps, upgrade systems and pay for deployments when we get board

    February 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm Reply
  34. Corteztk

    I hear people saying give Dreads a damage bonus vs. supers but frankly I don't think that solves the problem. Dreads on field with Titans and Moms do one thing well…..DIE. What they really need is the ability to tank supers in numbers. Make them vulnerable to sub caps but have huge bonuses to tanking capital weapons/fighters or bombers. That would make dreads useful again in capital fights.

    February 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm Reply
  35. No one important

    Wow, all of my comments about "when will you report on NCdot and PL's super losses?" are removed. Imagine that.

    February 29, 2012 at 4:16 pm Reply
  36. Bad banner!

    "Now, show me on this doll where the bad Mittani man touched you."

    AWESOME
    And pls riverini be decent, remove ur avator from the the banner.

    February 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm Reply
  37. Hakkon

    not my way of fixing stuff but still not as bad as it could be.

    1# Titans / Supers .
    my solution is simple as long as your aggressed your not allowed to update your modules on your ship.
    IE switch from a tracking titans vulnerability to a tanking titans resistance. that way before you enter the fray you have to consider is it worth it.

    2# SOV
    i love the idea about holdig sov should grant you income but instead of your sugestion i would like to give reasons to hold a small group of systems connected and don't have empty systems between. in the middle ages there wasn't a baron who would give away piece of land even if its unusable swamp. same should be used here. what im suggesting is that every you can upgrade your inner systems to be "Safe" and your outer to be pretty safe. and the cost to hold SOV should be a exponential cost / system you hold. so holding <4 is cheap and the more your own the higher the bill becomes. the safe part could be to deny bigger enemy ship from passing though the warpgates.
    this would not just force an attacker to first cross the moat then scale your walls before assulting your keep. the bonus of this would be that CCP could balance the nodes (ie the major engagements will be on your border systems).
    another + with this idea is it promotes minor alliances not major ones as the cost to keep sov will increase to an even unbearable level.

    3# Destructible stations, agrees with you there is no sense in NPC/PC stations to work diferent.
    and if NPC should work the same what would happen if some block decides to take out jita4 ….

    4# Moons:
    well i think every moon should be redistributed and the entire moon goo business to be re-evaluated right now there is no reason to fight over moons in Delve but in the north there is.
    Moons should be a part of the economy for the alliance like the copper/silver mines in the dark ages. and yes they should be depletable and once they are depleted a new resource should be spawned (randomly) on that moon.

    good post
    but not the way i would have done it.

    February 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm Reply
  38. -a- bluelist fags

    Riverni for csm! i love that riverni has his head on his shoulders (unlike these other brain-less fags). Supers/titans do not need a nerf, this has been shown from the supercap welp last night.

    Riverni for csm!!

    February 29, 2012 at 7:18 pm Reply
  39. Havoc

    Unless I am reading this wrong, you want to make Moon Goo required for PI? This is basically a fuck you to any and all wormhole corps who use PI to fuel their POS's, because moon mining isn't allowed in w-space, and allowing that to happen messes up about a thousand other things in the game that are properly balanced already. Pretty big oversight in my opinion.

    February 29, 2012 at 7:37 pm Reply
    1. Space Jew

      You want balance, make moon harvesting in the same form as PI but from the moon, W_space will remain barren.

      February 29, 2012 at 11:20 pm Reply
  40. Eve Grunt

    Well said. You've got my votes

    February 29, 2012 at 8:19 pm Reply
  41. Tez

    Well thought out and clearly presented, even if I don't agree with it all. So who actually wrote this for you?

    February 29, 2012 at 8:41 pm Reply
  42. anon

    And my axe!

    February 29, 2012 at 9:30 pm Reply
  43. Buggrit

    Riv, change the mustache. Its costing you votes.

    March 1, 2012 at 10:03 am Reply
  44. TheMitanni

    Riv –

    You sir sounded like a complete retard on EVE Radio.

    March 3, 2012 at 10:12 pm Reply
  45. Vote or Die

    Voted for you with both of my accounts riv…good luck

    March 7, 2012 at 5:17 pm Reply
  46. David Star

    Could we maybe have a worthwhile comment. Perhaps you could actually share with the class, as your opinion. Why are you not voting?

    I would genuinely like to know, and, perchance engage in an interesting discussion. But no, I get the above…

    February 29, 2012 at 7:13 am Reply
  47. Moronic feedback and trolling removed. Noise trolling is to be banned from now on for this thread.

    February 29, 2012 at 7:45 am Reply
  48. David Star

    I read the comment, it was useless.

    February 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm Reply

Leave a Reply