Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
940
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 16:45:55 -
[571] - Quote
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:Such is why we do not have a signatory, even though many of our members are outspoken critics of this terrible sov iteration.
That and almost the entirety the list consists of entities that are either hostile to The Imperium or Russian RMT slum lords.
No amount of washing will get the stains off from signing that thing. This all assuming that the petition raises legitimate points and those are few and far between.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
|
Morihiro
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 17:34:51 -
[572] - Quote
+1 |
Anduin Spartan
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 18:09:16 -
[573] - Quote
I'm here just to hang out on the threadnought |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6568
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 18:23:05 -
[574] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Many of the signatory alliances of this petition are historically known to be the worst offenders of botting and RMT. Citation needed.
First off, CCP rarely release the names of alliances housing bots. Secondly, someone botting or RMTing in an alliance doesn't mean that alliance itself is responsible for it. I guarantee every moderate to large group has a number of players RMTing in it, even your own.
At the end of the day, the mechanics they've rolled out are crap and have reduced conflict in null. If the best argument against it you've got is a tinfoil hat theory that they need dominion sov back to bot (which in itself is insane as fewer systems now make more isk and ratting/mining is now a required activity, likely resulting in more botting) then you really won't get very far.
Brocken Rocker wrote:CCP is right in changing the gameplay for some fresh air. Correct.
Brocken Rocker wrote:Their will be more stratetic descisions in defending and attacking SOV. I think, all of this big alliances are feared, cause they have to split their strike-forces and have to rationing all the Sov-Systems to get a greater defense-bonus.
That means they have much work. Wrong. Systems are now easier to hold, and while large alliances can hold less total space, they need less as each system supports more people. This system makes it harder to take sov from a larger alliance that wants it, and once it's settled down you'll simply see large alliances using these small alliances that are moving in on the outskirts as farming for PvPers. If you think you'll be able to move a 100 man alliance into a sov system next door to a 10k alliance and not get roflstomped daily, you're having a laugh.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Jina Snow
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 20:01:29 -
[575] - Quote
I support this Petition. |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
106
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 22:19:53 -
[576] - Quote
-1 for the reasons given here, and everywhere else I have posted...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5973652#post5973652 |
Jeven HouseBenyo
Baron and Serpent Productions
207
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 02:01:55 -
[577] - Quote
So let me get this straight.
CCP, with the release of FozzieSov, managed to 'break' your 'shiny' when it comes to Sov. And now you want it either quickly changed (to something startlingly similar to what was in place before) or rolled back until a better iteration is brainstormed and passes the Sisi feedback thread sniff test.
I say to those at this wailing wall what was suggested to us 'offering rage, tears and great gnashing of teeth' about the Icongate complaints.
Evolve or move on.
So it's a little different, when it's your 'shiny' on the line.....
>Jeven's Keyboardist
Minny boat flyer, when all else doesn't work, smack the control panel.
Snark at 11 24/7/365.25.
You're not rid of me yet..... Erzulie help you.
No you can't has my stuffs!
|
Arcelia Kaundur
Endgegner. Kids With Guns Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 07:22:31 -
[578] - Quote
Inquisitor Tyr wrote:Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:That's funny, coming from a guy who's alliance head is a signatory. Looks like you might be in with the wrong crowd chief. "If there are two people in a room and both of them agree, then one of them is useless" - Mark Twain. Thankfully, there are lots of people in our crowd that have different perspectives.
the correct quote would be, "...both of them are useless..." |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
452
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 16:25:47 -
[579] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:I have lived in nulsec since 2009. I do not support this petition. Do not speak for me.
The community which OP represents are the worst of the worst when it comes to actual content. They would have CCP revert to Dominion sov, which supported and even mandated vast sprawling empires of unused space, with massive fleets of SP-heavy capital ships jumping across the galaxy in minutes.
Many of the signatory alliances of this petition are historically known to be the worst offenders of botting and RMT. The true intent of this petition is clear for anyone that has played Eve Online for long enough. They wish a return to farming nulsec with vast armies of bots fueling their alliance coffers and/or their rl bank accounts.
So no. I do not and will not ever support this kind of blatantly and obviously self-serving petition and implore CCP to flat out ignore it.
+1
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
455
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 17:37:45 -
[580] - Quote
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:Karti Aivo wrote:UAxDEATH wrote:Alliances signed petition
- Alexander Leros, leader Hard Alliance
- Fafer, leader Tr0pa de elite., curator Brothers of Tangra
- Frosch Koenig, leader Synergy of Steel
- Garst Tyrell, leader Triumvirate.
- I Sam, leader Solar Fleet
- Lorianna Lee, leader Dream Fleet
- NullParseException, leader Soviet-Union
- titanokiller, leader Infinity Space.
- tru drksniper, leader Advent of Fate
- UAxDEATH, leader Legion of xXDEATHXx
- Unionn, leader The Afterlife.
- Redwyne Vyruk, manager of BOT and manager of XWX Shadow_of_xXDEATHXx
- meandeane651, head diplomat and alliance command for Gentlemen'sClub Gentlemen's.Club
- Rots Mijnwerker, leader The Blood Covenant
- Pandoro89, Gus Garlic, Maestr0 as Razor leaders RAZOR Alliance
lol what is this? Do you call that group "The Collective of Old ISK and Stable Renting Empires" ? Fozziesov was supposed to hit people like you and this post is a mere confirmation of its working. Not that your arguments got no substance, but that list on its own is a hilarous collection Yeah, except even Sion agrees with a lot of what he's saying, and has stated as much here.
And he's such an expert? When was the last time he even logged in and undocked anything?
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
|
MiRaNTa VaLToN
Slita Mining Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:12:56 -
[581] - Quote
I completely disagree:
I would think that the over all effect of trying to defend shouldn't be as one sided as you suggest, the tiring and discouraging task of a long drawn out fleet roam leading no victory would be of great benefit to those who took the effort of trolling in the first place. They would then be able to act on it at a later time once fleet moral is lost or drained.
As a pilot who roams Nulsec from an outsider's point of view I noticed most groups sov is unused space. Hence it taking so long for large groups to defend it. A 6 hour defense fleets is in no way the fault of CCP or of the trolling ship/fleet. You choose to occupy this space you choose the chore of defending it and yes it should be a CHORE defending other wise there would be no down side to owning so much space. All reward no risk is not the way of life in eve as all pilots learn in the early years.
As for wanting large scale engagements: not all alliances can even field such things. This leads to groups no being able to partake in Nulsec at all w/o joining one side or an other. We seen how these so called "Epic Battles" effected nulsec as of the past few years. When the majority of Nulsec was owned by 2 groups, N3 and CFC coalitions, this did in fact lead to stale nulsec activity. Relying on such tactics makes it nearly impossible for any alliance to join, take, hold, and grown in nulsec space with out being forced into said large groups. Case in point Brave: Brave moved to nulsec in the south soon after where forced back out of Nulsec by larger groups capable of bullying them to the breaking point.
I feel that more changes leading to smaller groups being able to both take and defend sov while taxing larger groups holding large amounts of sov should be encouraged. |
Dean Dewitt
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
41
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:22:37 -
[582] - Quote
Hi guys,
I see a lot of you, saying "I don't support this petition, the mechanic is fine, there is no problems", others say "The alliances which say that they agree with this petition are mostly renters like Shadow of xXDeathXx". To the guys who says that I would say, Have you tryed defending or attacking a system yet?
I did, so I can say if Aegissov is a sucess or not. In my opinion this sytem is broken, it's been there for 1 month and I'm already bored. What were the goals of Aegis sov? You can read them on this devblog Politics by Other Means The list of the goals and why they are failure
1st goal: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved.
The old system was a little boring, you had to shoot a structure and kill it before and after rf. Now we have the entosis, if you are an attacker, you wait depending on the ADM between 5min (new system taken) and 60mins, first to reinforce the structure and after just to take ONE NODE (so if the attacker is the only one to take node, he has to take 10nodes, I let you do the math). The defender don't have to form a fleet, he only has to break the lock of the entosis ship (it'll buy him time) or kill quickly the entosis ship.
Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
With the trollceptor, a lot of people just entosis structure just to **** off the owner, they don't even try to take the sov. With this mechanics you don't really know if you are being attack or not.
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
With this mechanics, people want to take the node quickly so you just have to bring more alt the get the nodes. People don't split the fleets because you don't know if your ennemie will split his fleet.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
This one is half a success
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
This one was already succeeded, nothing changed.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
As I said before, you can't split your fleet if the ennemie don't split his fleet.
Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
You can't have a perfect system, yes, I agree with that, but you can't release something not finished, if half the idea is good, you have no good idea.
Your goals are failure, you wanted 0.0 to change, you wanted less empty system, yeah I get it. But any alliance who wants to take 0.0 system has to get others blue alliance to help them. You can't change this fact with this. The best change for the 0.0 was jump fatigue and I don't want to change it (or may be for the jump freighter or black ops). Thanks to phoebe conflicts are more local. How many system are rf and not taken? How many sytem are now unclaimed? Here is the Tenerifis map, it'll give you an idea http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Tenerifis or you can see the Catch map http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Catch
Please CCP fix this system quickly, for now living in null sec is not fun.
For the others, I speak for myself and I don't need your approval to say that Aegis sov is broken.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16929
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 20:11:37 -
[583] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:+1
Despite people whining that this relates to rental income, the OP is right. This system puts null holders on the defensive during vulnerability timers, which undermines the ability to fight for content elsewhere.
"It's literally too much to expect us to undock a RLML Caracal and a couple of tackle frigates to defend our sov during our prime"
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
457
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 20:51:06 -
[584] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:+1
Despite people whining that this relates to rental income, the OP is right. This system puts null holders on the defensive during vulnerability timers, which undermines the ability to fight for content elsewhere. "It's literally too much to expect us to undock a RLML Caracal and a couple of tackle frigates to defend our sov during our prime"
Undock?
But that's boring.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
5273
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 21:39:55 -
[585] - Quote
Jeven HouseBenyo wrote:So let me get this straight.
CCP, with the release of FozzieSov, managed to 'break' your 'shiny' when it comes to Sov. "Who Moved My Cheese!" |
Redwyne Vyruk
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
16
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:07:41 -
[586] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=441365&find=unread
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16932
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:05:39 -
[587] - Quote
Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing.
As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we?
BEFORE
AFTER
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Steadly Sol
Steadly Sprockets
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:34:17 -
[588] - Quote
Signed. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6574
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:49:01 -
[589] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing. As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we? BEFOREAFTER So before we coloured the map in 4 colours for CFC, NC, Provi and "neutral", and after we colour in the map for each alliance. That way it looks like huge amounts have changed. That about right?
Unclaimed systems are a sign that sov is not worth taking, to the point that people leave systems they could just walk in and claim uncontested. It's because most people don't want sov, they just don't want coalitions to have it either.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16932
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 21:41:48 -
[590] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing. As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we? BEFOREAFTER So before we coloured the map in 4 colours for CFC, NC, Provi and "neutral", and after we colour in the map for each alliance. That way it looks like huge amounts have changed. That about right? Unclaimed systems are a sign that sov is not worth taking, to the point that people leave systems they could just walk in and claim uncontested. It's because most people don't want sov, they just don't want coalitions to have it either.
Why are you still in a 0.0 alliance?
"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
6586
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 06:38:01 -
[591] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing. As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we? BEFOREAFTER So before we coloured the map in 4 colours for CFC, NC, Provi and "neutral", and after we colour in the map for each alliance. That way it looks like huge amounts have changed. That about right? Unclaimed systems are a sign that sov is not worth taking, to the point that people leave systems they could just walk in and claim uncontested. It's because most people don't want sov, they just don't want coalitions to have it either. Why are you still in a 0.0 alliance? Because I like(d) null and hold out hope CCP won't destroy it in the long run. Nice dodge though bro.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16934
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 06:53:37 -
[592] - Quote
Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was.
"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
6587
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 10:37:46 -
[593] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was. I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16937
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 11:40:15 -
[594] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was. I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed? If you could link a more up to date bloc map I'd be delighted to use it.
"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
6588
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 12:31:37 -
[595] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was. I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed? If you could link a more up to date bloc map I'd be delighted to use it. I don't have such a map. If you don't either, then it's probably better to simply avoid suggesting that looking at 2 different types of map shows the change. Maybe at some point someone that cares enough about such things will roll out a decent analysis of the changes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
guinea12
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 13:02:12 -
[596] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Malcanis wrote:Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was. I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed? If you could link a more up to date bloc map I'd be delighted to use it. I don't have such a map. If you don't either, then it's probably better to simply avoid suggesting that looking at 2 different types of map shows the change. Maybe at some point someone that cares enough about such things will roll out a decent analysis of the changes.
I believe somebody already does care enough.
There you go: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/coalitionsov/Coalitioninfluence.png
Malcanis made the very good point that the notion that every bit of space needs to be owned by someone all the time is rather toxic.
I agree. Why shouldn't we have bits of space that, simply for the fact that the current 0.0 powers right now are not interested in having it or capable of defending it remain in freeport mode until someone steps up to tries and live in it, remain unallocated? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 16:24:01 -
[597] - Quote
Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year?
guinea12 wrote:Malcanis made the very good point that the notion that every bit of space needs to be owned by someone all the time is rather toxic.
I agree. Why shouldn't we have bits of space that, simply for the fact that the current 0.0 powers right now are not interested in having it or capable of defending it remain in freeport mode until someone steps up to try and live in it, remain unallocated? Doesn't it make you wonder though why the space is so worthless that nobody wants to claim it? I can't stick a broken fridge outside my house for more than 10 minutes before someone's claimed it. How badly balanced do null systems need to be for them to be so unwanted?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
guinea12
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 17:25:21 -
[598] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year? No. The map is generated on a daily basis. I don't know if past maps are stored somewhere.
Lucas Kell wrote:Doesn't it make you wonder though why the space is so worthless that nobody wants to claim it? I can't stick a broken fridge outside my house for more than 10 minutes before someone's claimed it. How badly balanced do null systems need to be for them to be so unwanted? I like that analogy. The reason why someone takes the fridge is because it is obviously worthless to you but not to them. Would they wrestle a pitbull for it? No. But if its previous owner doesn't want it anymore, they might as well take it and see if they can find a use for it somehow. I would love the new mechanic to lead to that kind of thing in terms of 0.0 space. |
k898
Desecrated Ascension The Gallows Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 19:10:40 -
[599] - Quote
They are stored on eve files |
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
940
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 19:50:55 -
[600] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year?
http://i.imgur.com/yAR8khZ.jpg
The best I could do with an old map and windows paint.
Imperium and N3 where the two blocks.
Providence were neutral and I'm electing to count Brave as N3
While Providence held their region by force of arms (and the space is so bad that no one stronger wanted it)
Brave held catch with N3s permission and at the mercy of N3. So while Brave at the time might not have fought for N3. Their space belonged to N3 and was held by Brave under the threat of N3s capital fleets.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |