-The shear amount of isk/assets that already exist in eve in the power blocks have made it impossible for any smaller groups to ever challenge. This is a legacy issue and part of the reason why CCP initially looked at dust as a possbile isk sink for EvE.

Please don't use profanity in your comments.

Thanks

Edited my post beers, why time based? (point c)

Per beers request this is my veiw on District ownership and drone infestations.

if your district becomes infected, it enters the locked state and you lose any benefits from that district.

To regain control you must destroy the infestation. if you lose too many clones doing so, you lose the district.

you could contract out the removal if you want, but they would have to send clones, deal with losing clones in transit ect.

1 Sov must reward the individual merc, not simply a source of isk/resources for the corp/alliance (This is more of an fps player aspect)

2 effort to maintain districts should scale in a linear fashion with the number of districts controlled by a corp/alliance

3 Resources/isk should be utilize active mechanics when possible

4 The urge to fight/reward for fighting should out weigh benefits of blue donut fest

5 The resource model needs to be random, dynamic, and include existing and new resources(must be reason for eve pilots to care about dust)

I agree wholeheartedly. The only point that I'd like to make is that the cost of maintaining control of a district should not increase linearly with the number controlled. The cost should increase exponentially such that controlling larger areas becomes increasingly more difficult. The exponential curve would need to be tweaked by CCP to give a certain threshold maximum area controlled without too much fuss. Frankly, this is how SOV should be in Eve as well.

And yes, I realize that larger corps/alliances will split into smaller groups to exploit the nonlinear costs, but nevertheless, a nonlinear, exponential cost growth is the best way to encourage more dynamics and entry points for smaller groups.

i have no interests in punishing corps for being large

I don't think it's quite fair to say something is "broken" if it doesn't happen to work exactly the way YOU want it to work. Some of us actually enjoy the politics and metagame of managing larger groups and working together as large entities to rule over the less organized and less politically motivated. The idea that how a player interacts in New Eden isn't restricted by arbitrary game mechanics is one of it's main draws and what sets it apart.

So your guys are good at the shooting bits? That means you need to work to recruit guys who are good with the politics and metagame.

Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.

If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.

I do, on the other hand, agree that there needs to be incentives for even the largest corps to stay in the fight and keep waging war.

I assure you, Subdreddit (and the Dust 514 arm of TEST in general) will not be sitting on our hands, we're gonna be shooting people in the face.

I don't think it's quite fair to say something is "broken" if it doesn't happen to work exactly the way YOU want it to work. Some of us actually enjoy the politics and metagame of managing larger groups and working together as large entities to rule over the less organized and less politically motivated. The idea that how a player interacts in New Eden isn't restricted by arbitrary game mechanics is one of it's main draws and what sets it apart.

So your guys are good at the shooting bits? That means you need to work to recruit guys who are good with the politics and metagame.

Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.

If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.

I do, on the other hand, agree that there needs to be incentives for even the largest corps to stay in the fight and keep waging war.

I assure you, Subdreddit (and the Dust 514 arm of TEST in general) will not be sitting on our hands, we're gonna be shooting people in the face.

I'll forgive your ignorance as to the motivation for my concept. The Negative-Feedback alliance is employeed by Goons (as if anyone didn't know by now). So we have all the meta game, isk, politics, zerg force, and most importantly propaganda that we will ever need.

I have been in nullsec a long time and understand the mechanics of it way more then I ever wanted too. At the same time I have been a competative fps player on and off for about 15 years. I am just trying to find a way to bring the best parts of both together. If you actually read my idea it's a merc-centric design where effort and activity of mercs is rewardard. I dont want size to be a benefit or negative since the average fps clan/group/organization tends to be smaller.

Test picks up PRO while goons picked up IMPS. All that time on our couch and you didn't learn anything did you? SMH

Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.

If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.

I get your point, I was simply trying to provide a counterpoint that didn't seem to have been addressed yet in the thread. It was looking a bit circlejerky.

I'm going to jump in here again, and mention that you've sorta contradicted yourself here. I am in a small corp. No, I don't want to be in a large corp. Currently, nullsec in Eve has very little room for a corp like mine, which means that when you say "...doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players...", currently Eve in nullsec very much benefits mostly those players of very large corps/alliances. I don't have a problem with that BTW, other than to say that it'd be nice if there was a little more room in Eve (and maybe Dust) for us little corps to hide.

But, telling another player to not suggest crafting the game to better suit them, is kinda saying that you want the game crafted to make your playstyle dominant.

There should be a middle ground.

I'll forgive your ignorance as to the motivation for my concept. The Negative-Feedback alliance is employeed by Goons (as if anyone didn't know by now). So we have all the meta game, isk, politics, zerg force, and most importantly propaganda that we will ever need.

I have been in nullsec a long time and understand the mechanics of it way more then I ever wanted too. At the same time I have been a competative fps player on and off for about 15 years. I am just trying to find a way to bring the best parts of both together. If you actually read my idea it's a merc-centric design where effort and activity of mercs is rewardard. I dont want size to be a benefit or negative since the average fps clan/group/organization tends to be smaller.

Test picks up PRO while goons picked up IMPS. All that time on our couch and you didn't learn anything did you? SMH