tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9101917425752696234.post3746041298500129655..comments2023-10-15T06:10:02.124-07:00Comments on @GamerChick42: Sovereignty (Part 1)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9101917425752696234.post-16399670361809575652015-03-09T01:18:39.315-07:002015-03-09T01:18:39.315-07:00I wish you could find something you enjoy. You see...I wish you could find something you enjoy. You seem to keep playing despite never being happy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9101917425752696234.post-16063614741302307202015-03-08T08:37:49.141-07:002015-03-08T08:37:49.141-07:00When I first read the new mechanics for sovereignt...When I first read the new mechanics for sovereignty, the whole issue of entosis links and command nodes caused me to step back and consider it within the game reality of EVE. Until it made 'sense' within the universe of EVE, I was going to have a lot of trouble getting my brain to move forward. It seemed like a good mechanic but if it was an abstract mechanic with no basis for belief--even within a futuristic reality, then it wasn't going to work for me. Here's how I came to see it.<br /><br />The command node mechanic seems to be a simulation of usurping a system via network warfare. Basically, hacking. The random nodes propagating throughout a constellation are a shifting map of network weakpoints. The nodes increase in number over time if there is no resolution, probably due to an increasing amount of viral activity within a network. As a network is overrun with viruses and hacks the weakpoints will only increase.<br /><br />The question then becomes: would a multi-system wide network attack bring those systems to a halt? Well, if the scope and scale are sufficient it could literally mean death for just about anyone living in those stations. On the other hand, the actual hacks require the presence of a ship with an entosis link to deliver a hack through a protocol/interface that can break into what has to be a very heavily protected series of networks. Such a hack can be blocked by a counter hack, which means an opposing ship with an entosis link. Another surefire way to prevent hacks or counter-hacks is through engaging the hacking ships in combat and blowing them up. That's where the space battles come in. Destroy any ships before they complete their hack and balance(or imbalance) returns.<br /><br />A sov group can still lose a system via network control but keep a large enough physical presence to make that system largely dormant. They won't have control of that system's structures, but can make it very expensive for anyone else to make use of those structures. Of course, such a large 'seige' presence will do nothing for those not in control of the system and require significant time and presence to maintain. So, lose/lose more or less at the most basic level, though deep financial pockets can absorb losses in order to 'bleed out' a victory.<br /><br />Is it conceivable for a network hack to have so much power? Given the current state of our inter-network now in real life, I don't really have a problem seeing networks holding the key to wide scale command and control.xavi bastanoldhttp://xavibastanold.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9101917425752696234.post-54586364914750635162015-03-08T00:53:50.463-08:002015-03-08T00:53:50.463-08:00Well... CCP needs to be careful to NOT change thin...Well... CCP needs to be careful to NOT change things too much. They can't really afford to lose many more players, due to poorly-considered game design changes, which negatively affect large numbers of long-time players, costing them years of in-game effort and advantage.<br /><br />Last year's disastrous changes to industry (aka Crius) resulted in the loss of a large number of high sec casual industrialist players, who did not rage-quit, but quietly let their prepaid subs run out over the course of the year and stopped playing. These players spent years building up their in-game competitive advantages, and CCP effectively wiped those advantages out, without any compensation. Looking at the EVE Offline numbers, it now appears that those players probably accounted for about 10-15% of the active player base. That's a lot of lost subscription revenue.<br /><br />A similiar drastic change to null sec would likely result in comparable, if not greater, loss of players/accounts. Also, null sec is more inclined to massive vocal rage-quitting, which would have a much greater negative effect on attracting new players, as compared to the quiet unsubbing of the carebears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9101917425752696234.post-23026956902251359902015-03-07T18:05:11.711-08:002015-03-07T18:05:11.711-08:00Some null alliances/coalitions boast a "botto...Some null alliances/coalitions boast a "bottom up" type of arrangement. I find that to be pretty much crap. In sov null there are uber rich top hats at the lead and the rest are useful idiots bowing to some phenomena that they paint their leader with. <br /><br />I mostly feel like that old arthritic dog in pain and hating life but hanging on for my owner because "man's best friend" while I secretly fantasize about being kicked out so I don't have to deal with the shit anymore. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09464290627349539074noreply@blogger.com