Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6760
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 22:18:57 -
[601] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6546
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 22:23:42 -
[602] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
330
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 22:31:43 -
[603] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face.
I like to imagine it goes something like this:
a) "Have the alliances stopped trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "No." a) "Hmm. Are the alliances pissed about trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "Yes." a) "Op success! Good job, everybody. They'll either figure out the new Aegis paradigm, or burn themselves out while banging their head against the wall over and over and over." |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6760
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 22:33:26 -
[604] - Quote
Yes!! Op success!!
Now for highsec's turn at magiclasers
Anyway where's moa with all their bragging, did something happen, I thought they were also at the op success stage
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 06:46:07 -
[605] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face. I like to imagine it goes something like this: a) "Have the alliances stopped trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "No." a) "Hmm. Are the alliances pissed about trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "Yes." a) "Op success! Good job, everybody. They'll either figure out the new Aegis paradigm, or burn themselves out while banging their head against the wall over and over and over." Except of course the part where alliances aren't pissed by defending systems they don't used, they're bored by defending systems the DO use. How long have you been in this thread and you still don't know what the issue is?
The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all. It's not, therefore it failed. Very few people actually want to use the system because it's s boring, hence people using it the absolute bare minimum they need to.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Loneball
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 06:53:43 -
[606] - Quote
Going to be pretty sweet when everyone realizes this is the calm before the storm.
People don't know what to expect yet. Everyone's sitting around waiting for someone to figure out how/what to do so they can claim that's what they were doing/saying all along.
Once a great person comes along, you sheep will follow suit and begin to experience the type of adrenaline fueled space conquests not seen since wolf 359. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16854
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 06:54:21 -
[607] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all.
Citation needed.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 07:02:34 -
[608] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all.
Citation needed. Dev Blog.
Quote:Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
This goal forms the core of what we want to accomplish with Phase Two.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5589
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 07:32:18 -
[609] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:they're bored by defending systems the DO use "FozzieSov has made us actually have to expend effort to defend our systems!"
Yes, indeed, how dare they.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 07:44:47 -
[610] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:they're bored by defending systems the DO use "FozzieSov has made us actually have to expend effort to defend our systems!" Yes, indeed, how dare they. It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Antylus Tyrell
Uedama Artisan Jams
14
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 08:12:55 -
[611] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:]It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad.
Lucas, you have said this about 100 times in this thread already, we all get that you think it is boring. Go move to a wormhole or highsec if you don't like it. The community does not agree with you, these changes are going to be great for the game. And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected. |
Salvos Rhoska
1237
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 08:13:45 -
[612] - Quote
Stands to reason CCP will fine tune changes eventually.
In the meantime you can attempt to create content by taking the fight to others and forcing them to defend.
------------
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6764
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 08:40:13 -
[613] - Quote
Antylus Tyrell wrote:The community does not agree with you, these changes are going to be great for the game. And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected. Op success, make sure ccp knows "the community" of GD loves it
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:08:12 -
[614] - Quote
Antylus Tyrell wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:]It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad. Lucas, you have said this about 100 times in this thread already, we all get that you think it is boring. Go move to a wormhole or highsec if you don't like it. The community does not agree with you, these changes are going to be great for the game. And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected. What thread are you reading? Clearly the community does agree with me. Even MOA getting a CTA to come and **** up these threads hasn't produced very much opposition to the fact that the new mechanics suck.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Stands to reason CCP will fine tune changes eventually.
In the meantime you can attempt to create content by taking the fight to others and forcing them to defend. Translation "CCP can't design fun mechanics so ignore them and do what you needed to do for content under the old system". Seems like a waste of dev time if all they've managed to produce is a different reason for us to do what we did anyway.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1774
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:26:37 -
[615] - Quote
People keep saying it doesn't bring fights.
So I have a question: Is anyone with weight to throw around actually running a campaign to contest a middleweight (or above) alliances Sov?
What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. |
Salvos Rhoska
1237
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:39:30 -
[616] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Stands to reason CCP will fine tune changes eventually.
In the meantime you can attempt to create content by taking the fight to others and forcing them to defend. Translation "CCP can't design fun mechanics so ignore them and do what you needed to do for content under the old system". Seems like a waste of dev time if all they've managed to produce is a different reason for us to do what we did anyway.
Well, yes. Thats one way to subjectively translate by adding your personal preference. If I want a translator, Ill hire one.
My reading of the dev blog gives the strong impression of the direction CCP is taking through the stated numbered goals, and that this is just laying the groundwork for those.
Its a system that they can more directly fine tune and add onto/subtract from, than the previous one, and that is their stated intent in the explanations of the respective goals.
In the meantimetill they get around to that, yes, its pretty much business as usual.
If you want fights, form up, head out and commit.
------------
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6764
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:39:47 -
[617] - Quote
afkalt wrote:What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. You don't have to park tanks to lay siege
Just poke their fence and ring their doorbell with frigates repeatedly will get you better results
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:44:29 -
[618] - Quote
afkalt wrote:People keep saying it doesn't bring fights.
So I have a question: Is anyone with weight to throw around actually running a campaign to contest a middleweight (or above) alliances Sov? No, because nobody with weight to throw around wants to fire mining lasers at structures. We'd rather fire mining lasers at rocks and afk rat while we gank noobs in highsec for kicks. Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. These are all problems that were predetermined long before these mechanics went live.
afkalt wrote:What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. That's pretty much the bulk of the the new system, yes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1774
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:45:14 -
[619] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:afkalt wrote:What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. You don't have to park tanks to lay siege Just poke their fence and ring their doorbell with frigates repeatedly will get you better results
Well you're managing just fine
But my question was serious - is anyone actually meaningful of relevant contesting sov like they mean it? |
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
1245
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:47:05 -
[620] - Quote
Jayne Fillon wrote:I made my original post here but I thought it would be worthwhile to post this on the actual official forums. What I'm looking for is your experienced with fozziesov so far - not your opinions or feelings - but actual stories about what you've done with fozziesov to date. Good experiences, bad experiences, funny anecdotes.... please share them all. Thanks!Original Post Below: Hey everyone! The CSM just got out of a meeting with CCP Seagull, the Executive Producer of Eve Online. Although the vast vast majority of what we discussed is obviously NDA, one of things that came out of the meeting is that CCP is actively looking to tweak fozziesov, and is willing to have that change based on actual player experiences and anecdotes. So, as the CSM, we need YOU to share your anecdotes about Fozziesov! We'll be collecting them and forwarding them to CCP Seagull herself, as well as other developers.
- Has your small alliance been able to capture space for the first time ever?
- Are you playing World of Warships while AFK capping 800 command nodes?
- Has your corporation or alliance's playstyle been radically altered by fozziesov?
We want to know these things, both positive and negative, so that we have real player's opinions and experiences. This will help give the CSM the firepower we need to enact real change and make the sov system better and more enjoyable for everyone. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer in the comment section below despite the NDA. A few extra tidbits: CCP doesn't like the term "fozziesov" which implies that this update has been a one man show. CCP Fozzie is the lead designer for Team 5-0, which is the team responsible for the sovereignty overhaul. There are 7 developers on Team 5-0, including CCP Mimic, CCP Punkturis, CCP Masterplan and CCP Lebowski. Anyway, this discussion is expected to continue into late august, and the CSM hopes to have the majority of sov's current pain points resolved by the next two patches. Help us make it happen! Edit: If you're wondering, the preferred term is "Aegis Sov"
when I check the map, ships destroyed last 24 hours, its too quiet... I see big fleets jumping out every day from goonhub, but they might just serve as taxi for their fedos
SpaceJunkys on YouTube - Harry Forever on the Forums
|
|
Antylus Tyrell
Uedama Artisan Jams
14
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:48:13 -
[621] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: What thread are you reading? Clearly the community does agree with me. Even MOA getting a CTA to come and **** up these threads hasn't produced very much opposition to the fact that the new mechanics suck.
Lucas you do realize that every post made here by "Lucas Kell" is not actually a bunch of different people named lucas kell supporting your case. Its just one guy, you....
Stop wasting ccps time and get out there and defend your space. You could have repaired several nodes in the time you have taken here to make the same "its boring" post over and over.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6764
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:48:29 -
[622] - Quote
You siege people by ringing their doorbell until they move out
But you don't move in, otherwise people will ring your doorbell until you move out
Antylus Tyrell wrote:You could have repaired several nodes in the time you have taken here to make the same "its boring" post over and over.
What do you think we do while shooting repair lasers at nodes?
Also, what time are our structures not invulnerable
afkalt wrote:But my question was serious - is anyone actually meaningful of relevant contesting sov like they mean it? And I was serious.
They are, meaningful contesting is interceptors and the like
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:50:16 -
[623] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:My reading of the dev blog gives the strong impression of the direction CCP is taking through the stated numbered goals, and that this is just laying the groundwork for those. My reading of the dev blog gives me the strong impression that they don't understand what players want from the game, which is why they replaced shooting with mining and it's all gone wrong.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:If you want fights, form up, head out and commit. We want to achieve the best we can with whatever system is in place, and ideally we'd like that to require conflict. Since it doesn't require conflict and actually benefits us more from avoidance of the same, we have no reason to form up. Sometimes I wonder if CCPs goal is for us to all be blue.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Salvos Rhoska
1237
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:54:20 -
[624] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy.
A fair and true enough assesment. But that is the new status quo.
The risk of deployment and aggressive action is commensurate with your own system defences being more vulnerable.
If you choose that it is more expedient to not deploy for this reason, then that is your choice. Its a choice, and a risk, everyone has to make for themselves.
You can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the water, just means you have a very stubborn horse or its not thirsty enough yet.
------------
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:55:19 -
[625] - Quote
Antylus Tyrell wrote:Lucas you do realize that every post made here by "Lucas Kell" is not actually a bunch of different people named lucas kell supporting your case. Its just one guy, you....
Stop wasting ccps time and get out there and defend your space. You could have repaired several nodes in the time you have taken here to make the same "its boring" post over and over. There's plenty of people here, in other thread and in other places on the net stating the exact same thing, that nobody wants to mine structures. It's not my fault that you're so infatuated with me that you attribute every post as mine.
And we are defending our space, genius. At no point have I stated "the problem with this system is that firing sensor damps is just too damn hard!". It's ludicrously easy for us to hold our space and spend even more time generating isk. The problem with that is that it causes stagnation on a greater scale than it used to.
Sometimes when I read posts from people like you I wonder if your end goal is to kill off EVE altogether.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
215
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:57:23 -
[626] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. A fair and true enough assesment. But that is the new status quo. The risk of deployment and aggressive action is commensurate with your own system defences being more vulnerable. If you choose that it is more expedient to not deploy for this reason, then that is your choice. Its a choice, and a risk, everyone has to make for themselves. You can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the water, just means you have a very stubborn horse or its not thirsty enough yet.
Risk everything simply because you are heading out for content = not worth it.
So everyone's staying put and defensing up.
Except a few non-sov holders trolling around.
Been around since the beginning.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:58:51 -
[627] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. A fair and true enough assesment. But that is the new status quo. The risk of deployment and aggressive action is commensurate with your own system defences being more vulnerable. If you choose that it is more expedient to not deploy for this reason, then that is your choice. Its a choice, and a risk, everyone has to make for themselves. You can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the water, just means you have a very stubborn horse or its not thirsty enough yet. And if this were related to hydrating a horse, then you'd have a point. Games however can be made to require conflict. Seems like CCP have decided that conflict is bad though and thought "lets make taking sov require no conflict and make staying in your own space and just defending that far more appealing than aggressing anyone else".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Salvos Rhoska
1237
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 10:00:27 -
[628] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:We want to achieve the best we can with whatever system is in place, and ideally we'd like that to require conflict. Since it doesn't require conflict and actually benefits us more from avoidance of the same, we have no reason to form up. Sometimes I wonder if CCPs goal is for us to all be blue.
Ypur perception is that the best to do in this system is stay in your own systems answering doorbells. Fair enough, thats your choice.
Conflict requires committal of force, and if you are not willing to commit your forces to aggressive action for fear of leaving other systems vulnerable, thats a choice everyone has to make same as you.
Only your own risk aversion and threshold is stopping you from heading out and kicking doors in (instead of doorbelling). Its your choice.
Sometimes I wonder if YOUR goal is for everyone to go blue, and that is fairly demonstrably exactly what you have been doing for quite sometime.
Ypu can blame and criticise CCP for design choices, but what you do with them, is on your own recognisance and responsibility.
------------
|
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
755
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 10:00:39 -
[629] - Quote
afkalt wrote:People keep saying it doesn't bring fights.
So I have a question: Is anyone with weight to throw around actually running a campaign to contest a middleweight (or above) alliances Sov?
What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking.
The saying "art imitates life" and "the pen is mightier than the sword" is the current meta of EVE. When you're at the top you might as well be friends with the other top guys so you guys can roll in the ISK fountain while stomping on any newcomer that wants in on the party. That way you are assured you have continued dominance since the other entities that can actually screw you over are your friends and not some upstart new guy you barely know.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6765
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 10:00:50 -
[630] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sometimes when I read posts from people like you I wonder if your end goal is to kill off EVE altogether. Just nullsec.
Maybe just us.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |