Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
193
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
In times of war there can often be hostile relations between both sides. Forum spam, local bashing, lolgaming news sites, we have all seen it.
But today I feel everyone can come together, who right now fight against each other in HED-GP, everyone can come to an agreement on one thing.
Fix Sov
This is terrible, this is not epic, this is not grand, this is not amazing. This is just putting a gun to the head of a blind and deaf man and yet this is also EvEs largest capital battle ever.
While the battle today is not the fault of CCP, we are merely people playing the game you created for us, it can at lest put a remind that something more needs to be done perhaps. The server can not handle these battles yet, but sov dictates they have to happen to take a single system.
I am not here to tell you how it can be done, CCP knows the code better then I and know what is possible and what is not. I am just want to say that the current Sov system(which has been around longer then POS sov system of old) is sub-optimal to the current EvE player base.
|
Dave Stark
4244
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know. |
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
Blue standings vs another corp/Alliance should cost isk. More blues = more tax.
Thats all im saying, think about it. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
I wonder, if CCP hadn't spent all that money on Dust and WOD, and instead, put it into the Eve servers (were the money was made) if we could actually have the fights CCP brag about? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9870
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Too many caps, too many caps on all sides.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Dave Stark
4244
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:Blue standings vs another corp/Alliance should cost isk. More blues = more tax.
Thats all im saying, think about it.
that's just going to create third party junk to replace blue standings and nothing will be resolved. set standings on third party website system, import your local list and it'll tell you who is and isn't blue... no tax paid.
in fact, i'm pretty sure there are already tools that do this. |
trader joes Ichinumi
Waltaratzor Corporation
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
The only realistic solution is to create incentives for attacking multiple systems at once so this doesn't happen, but that would take a lot of work.
Off the top of my head: Create control points in adjacent systems that give bonuses to your allies. IE Each control point grants 10% more damage. If you have 4 such points, you could really reduce the workload.
However, this would require a lot of rebalancing of ships and reworking sov, which I doubt CCP will do. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1681
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:In times of war their can often be hostile relations between both sides. Forum spam, local bashing, lolgaming news sites, we have all seen it.
But today I feel everyone can come together, who right now, fight against each other in HED-GP. Everyone can come to an agreement on one thing.
Fix Sov
This is terrible, this is not epic, this is not grand, this is not amazing. This is just putting a gun to the head of a blind an deaf man and yet this is also EvEs largest capital battle ever.
While the battle today is not the fault of CCP, we are merely people playing the game you created for us, it can at lest put a remind that something more needs to be done perhaps. The server can not handle these battles yet, but sov dictates they have to happen to take a single system.
I am not here to tell you how it can be done, CCP knows the code better then I and know what is possible and what is not. I just want to say that the current Sov system(which has been around longer then POS sov system of old) is sub-optimal to the current EvE player base.
some PL guy came up with a really good idea for fixing sov... it had to do with capital system for every constilation to take sov for the whole constilation you would have to have one big fight for the capital (which would still lead to mind slow lag)
but there would be loads of fun leading up to that in the form of enhanced FW plexes that would have to be taken to secure outer lining systems. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10038
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:some PL guy came up with a really good idea for fixing sov... it had to do with capital system for every constilation to take sov for the whole constilation you would have to have one big fight for the capital (which would still lead to mind slow lag)
but there would be loads of fun leading up to that in the form of enhanced FW plexes that would have to be taken to secure outer lining systems.
you've played long enough to know that that suggestion is literally pre-dominion sov Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
dantes inferno
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Thx CCP for this afternoon "fight", that's the worst game experience i've ever had................................. |
|
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
201
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
At this point talking and getting CCP to admit it might need to look into Sov again is better then coming up with something that may or may not be possible
It will not be an easy task, but Eve has changed since Dominion has come about. I mean we were still using RR-CRBS when it came out! |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
313
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP can't fix Sov, they're too busy doing super duper really important things like adding broken deployables to nerf nullsec ratting income. |
Admiral Snowbird
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
but Eve has changed because we have ESS now!
But really CCP will not change anything because we're a small group ~6000ppl and not the mainstream so they better work on other cool stuff |
Thead Enco
Killing is Business Get Off My Lawn
61
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Stop with the half a$$ development of products that take you three times as long to make Vs. your competitors that have little value to your flagship game. Stop wasting resources on "Community Reps" and Stop for the love of God with bull **** modules like the "ESS" or other "Ideas" that is comparable to the bastard expansion that was Incarna.
"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king."
Tywin Lannister-á |
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Too many caps, too many caps on all sides.
Too many tech, tooo many technetium for years on an end...
Told you so CCP
gl fixing |
Cor Six
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Let me tell you... 2 hrs jumptunnel aint fun.
But ohwell now we all know that if its coalition vs coalition fights were back to 2006. The one that smaks there forces in to the system first wins cuz the other one simply cant get in.
Atleast i hope CCP reimbursts all those dreads. Star Citizen anyone? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9872
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:baltec1 wrote:Too many caps, too many caps on all sides.
Too many tech, tooo many technetium for years on an end... Told you so CCP gl fixing
They nerfed that a while ago.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Zircon Dasher
332
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:53:00 -
[18] - Quote
Better server/code = more "people" needed to play the lag/tidi/node crush war More "people" needed to play the lag/tidi/node crush war = more alt accounts
Therefore, Better server/code = more alt accounts
More alt accounts = same game experience for unique players More alt accounts = more money for CCP
THEREFORE, Better server/code = more money for CCP and same game experience for unique players
Rinse and Repeat Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1681
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:At this point talking and getting CCP to admit it might need to look into Sov again is better then coming up with something that may or may not be possible
It will not be an easy task, but Eve has changed since Dominion has come about. I mean we were still using RR-CRBS when it came out!
if the nestor is a taste of things to come... you might start again
though ccp veritas did make a dev blog in 2011 talking about how they were thinking of fixing sov.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/nullsec-development-design-goals/
its been 2.5 years think they have the an idea of where they want to go by now. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Findail
Kenshin. Against ALL Authorities
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
dantes inferno wrote:Thx CCP for this afternoon "fight", that's the worst game experience i've ever had.................................
Instead of lying about how awsome fights in EvE are on your official youtube channel, fix sov, fix tidi...And be sure this ****** game play will be shown by players on youtube. We will laugh when subscription will go down again (already happening anyway...)
Yep. Stayed up all night in the hopes of an epic fight... and instead get a system where even if you wait an hour the grid can't load |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9872
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
Findail wrote:dantes inferno wrote:Thx CCP for this afternoon "fight", that's the worst game experience i've ever had.................................
Instead of lying about how awsome fights in EvE are on your official youtube channel, fix sov, fix tidi...And be sure this ****** game play will be shown by players on youtube. We will laugh when subscription will go down again (already happening anyway...) Yep. Stayed up all night in the hopes of an epic fight... and instead get a system where even if you wait an hour the grid can't load
I think you died some time ago. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Gettz Squall
Unified Combatants Against ALL Authorities
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
I wish i was not there...f*ck, i lost my interest to defend hed with this kind of tidi,,,,go ahead n3 , just take it....im going to bed |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
325
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 20:59:00 -
[23] - Quote
said it once, will say again:
the root cause is that the sov system rewards blobbing in the form of timers and timing windows.
come up with a system that gets rid of the timing window aspect, and the blobbing will take a sharp downturn. |
Sakaron Hefdover
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
trader joes Ichinumi wrote:The only realistic solution is to create incentives for attacking multiple systems at once so this doesn't happen, but that would take a lot of work.
Off the top of my head: Create control points in adjacent systems that give bonuses to your allies. IE Each control point grants 10% more damage. If you have 4 such points, you could really reduce the workload.
However, this would require a lot of rebalancing of ships and reworking sov, which I doubt CCP will do.
That won't do ****
You need anti blob stuff, such as fleet formations that give bonuses, and New AOE weapons that can become common and don't require a specialized ship to use.
Both at the same time however |
Zircon Dasher
333
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:02:00 -
[25] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote: the root cause is that the PVP system rewards blobbing
FYP Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Eram Fidard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
720
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:04:00 -
[26] - Quote
over 2 hours now spent in warp tunnel.
"epic battle"
Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages. |
Findail
Kenshin. Against ALL Authorities
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:04:00 -
[27] - Quote
[quote=baltec1
I think you died some time ago.[/quote]
Think I sat in my wreck for about half an hour or so hoping that my pod would load so I could pod myself out.... But it never happened. From jumping in to arriving back in a new clone I never saw a thing.
I agree with the OP - they need to fix the way sov works, since it's pretty clear the nodes can't handle big fights |
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
561
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
Can we maybe get less new deployable things and more work on sov mechanics and a better way to reinforce nodes, or help them be able to better handle these types of fights? I understand nothings perfect, but you're getting free advertisement from us and where do all your large epic battles take place that you try to sell to new players, might want to make sure it sorta' works.
We (CFC/NC./PL -and everyone else who deals with this) want to play this game, but when we have these huge fights that are inevitable, it's very difficult and I dare say it's unplayable. Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9872
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:06:00 -
[29] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:said it once, will say again:
the root cause is that the sov system rewards blobbing in the form of timers and timing windows.
come up with a system that gets rid of the timing window aspect, and the blobbing will take a sharp downturn.
Timers don't cause blobbing, its the huge amounts of HP. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1682
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:06:00 -
[30] - Quote
Andski wrote:MeBiatch wrote:some PL guy came up with a really good idea for fixing sov... it had to do with capital system for every constilation to take sov for the whole constilation you would have to have one big fight for the capital (which would still lead to mind slow lag)
but there would be loads of fun leading up to that in the form of enhanced FW plexes that would have to be taken to secure outer lining systems. you've played long enough to know that that suggestion is literally pre-dominion sov
tbh the pos bowling system was better. then domi system
here is the link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=266270&find=unread
i like this idea the best... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
|
Paragannon
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
This is terrible, as if the meta was not bad enough, drone assist, drone assist, drone assist, drone assist, a ******** mechanic that makes fleets nothing more than 1 homogeneous goo where the FC presses a button once every 30 seconds and the rest of the fleet watches a movie, or even worse, PLAYS OTHER GAMES.
They have to do this in 0.01% tidi. Its the most demoralizing, unfun thing ever.
Dont get me wrong i love this game, I have been in many large battles that really make my heart pump, especially if u are in some expensive ship that u really don't want to loose.
The battle is not over but n3pl will surely come out in front, because it is completely unthinkable to jump anything more into this fight, why would we? No one is having fun.
It comes to a point where the brave dread pilots, the small portion of total caps that were given the order to jump, either die before they jump and load grid, or load grid and wish to die to get out of this cursed system after 5 hours of boredom and 2 CYCLES OF GUNS.
This war seems to be far from over, as for the will to fight of the pilots on both sides, and the fun they are getting out of the game? I guess every1 knows the answer to that.
|
Wolf Kruol
Destructive Influence Northern Coalition.
51
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:16:00 -
[32] - Quote
Agreed with OP,
This is nonsense expectations for EVE's future. I'm still waiting to get back into the battle.. **** at this point I don't care if goons kills me so I can just get back to GXK...
BUT I CAN'T log on...
So CCP ether move me to Keberz or kill me.. Ya I petitioned CCP to kill me so I can get back to playing eve... HED is DEAD! GÇ£If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid?
You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!GÇ¥ |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9872
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:19:00 -
[33] - Quote
Wolf Kruol wrote:Agreed with OP,
This is nonsense expectations for EVE's future. I'm still waiting to get back into the battle.. **** at this point I don't care if goons kills me so I can just get back to GXK...
BUT I CAN'T log on...
So CCP ether move me to Keberz or kill me.. Ya I petitioned CCP to kill me so I can get back to playing eve... HED is DEAD!
I wouldn't bother, only titan DDs seem to be working now. The dreads were lost the second they jumped. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
327
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:said it once, will say again:
the root cause is that the sov system rewards blobbing in the form of timers and timing windows.
come up with a system that gets rid of the timing window aspect, and the blobbing will take a sharp downturn. Timers don't cause blobbing, its the huge amounts of HP.
it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1138
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:21:00 -
[35] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:In times of war their can often be hostile relations between both sides. Forum spam, local bashing, lolgaming news sites, we have all seen it.
But today I feel everyone can come together, who right now, fight against each other in HED-GP. Everyone can come to an agreement on one thing.
Fix Sov
This is terrible, this is not epic, this is not grand, this is not amazing. This is just putting a gun to the head of a blind an deaf man and yet this is also EvEs largest capital battle ever.
While the battle today is not the fault of CCP, we are merely people playing the game you created for us, it can at lest put a remind that something more needs to be done perhaps. The server can not handle these battles yet, but sov dictates they have to happen to take a single system.
I am not here to tell you how it can be done, CCP knows the code better then I and know what is possible and what is not. I just want to say that the current Sov system(which has been around longer then POS sov system of old) is sub-optimal to the current EvE player base.
THen why in hell everytime someone suggest changes to move sov in favor of more smaller scaled engagements with valid small scale targets that hurt the sov.. both sides.. yours and yoru enemy call thes epeopel stupid?
No.. you do not want fun fights. You like the status quo... you want that.. and now you pay for it with fights that are not fun at all. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Wolf Kruol
Destructive Influence Northern Coalition.
52
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Wolf Kruol wrote:Agreed with OP,
This is nonsense expectations for EVE's future. I'm still waiting to get back into the battle.. **** at this point I don't care if goons kills me so I can just get back to GXK...
BUT I CAN'T log on...
So CCP ether move me to Keberz or kill me.. Ya I petitioned CCP to kill me so I can get back to playing eve... HED is DEAD! I wouldn't bother, only titan DDs seem to be working now. The dreads were lost the second they jumped. I was lost the second I jumped from Keberz to HED 4 hours ago in and endless tunnel.. My mistake was to reset my client hoping to get a fresh log in..
GÇ£If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid?
You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!GÇ¥ |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9872
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:
it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff.
We wouldn't need blobs if it wasn't for the huge amounts of HP we need to burn through. Todays fight only happened because the N3/PL capital blob waited around for us. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
207
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:24:00 -
[38] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:WarFireV wrote:In times of war their can often be hostile relations between both sides. Forum spam, local bashing, lolgaming news sites, we have all seen it.
But today I feel everyone can come together, who right now, fight against each other in HED-GP. Everyone can come to an agreement on one thing.
Fix Sov
This is terrible, this is not epic, this is not grand, this is not amazing. This is just putting a gun to the head of a blind an deaf man and yet this is also EvEs largest capital battle ever.
While the battle today is not the fault of CCP, we are merely people playing the game you created for us, it can at lest put a remind that something more needs to be done perhaps. The server can not handle these battles yet, but sov dictates they have to happen to take a single system.
I am not here to tell you how it can be done, CCP knows the code better then I and know what is possible and what is not. I just want to say that the current Sov system(which has been around longer then POS sov system of old) is sub-optimal to the current EvE player base. THen why in hell everytime someone suggest changes to move sov in favor of more smaller scaled engagements with valid small scale targets that hurt the sov.. both sides.. yours and yoru enemy call thes epeopel stupid? No.. you do not want fun fights. You like the status quo... you want that.. and now you pay for it with fights that are not fun at all.
Bro me and my people? This is about togetherness over something that is broken not about stupid propaganda. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
327
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:24:00 -
[39] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:
it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff.
We wouldn't need blobs if it wasn't for the huge amounts of HP we need to burn through. Todays fight only happened because the N3/PL capital blob waited around for us.
They waited around?
Was it for a timer to end?....... |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2228
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:25:00 -
[40] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:Blue standings vs another corp/Alliance should cost isk. More blues = more tax.
Thats all im saying, think about it. that's just going to create third party junk to replace blue standings and nothing will be resolved. set standings on third party website system, import your local list and it'll tell you who is and isn't blue... no tax paid. in fact, i'm pretty sure there are already tools that do this. from what i heard the standings and little coloured squares were created in response to players already doing the same with their own tools |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2228
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:26:00 -
[41] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. no, timers just allow the two fleets to be in the same place at the same time |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9872
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:They waited around? Was it for a timer to end?.......
They wanted a capital fight.
What we got was something nobody wanted or enjoyed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
563
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:31:00 -
[43] - Quote
Wolf Kruol wrote: I was lost the second I jumped from Keberz to HED 4 hours ago in and endless tunnel.. My mistake was to reset my client hoping to get a fresh log in..
Haha.. I'm debating the same idea, to reset, or not to reset as I'm suffering from the black screen of death. I think I'll just let it go after reading your comment.
Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
327
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:32:00 -
[44] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. no, timers just allow the two fleets to be in the same place at the same time
*facepalm*
0/10 troll, too obvious.
nobody can be this stupid. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2228
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:40:00 -
[45] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. no, timers just allow the two fleets to be in the same place at the same time *facepalm* 0/10 troll, too obvious. nobody can be this stupid. i can imagine how a person ignorant carebear who's never left concord's teet wouldn't realise this but timers are the way to facilitate important fights in a single sharded game across multiple timezones
they allow fights to happen at all scales, instead of structure pingpong which'd be the shitfest happening if timers didn't exist |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1986
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:45:00 -
[46] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know.
Because they are told to. These poor people would rather be part of a huge clusterfuck, wasting their time, as opposed to actually DOING something in the game. Their emotional state cries out for acceptance in a large group, at the cost of anything else.
If their hive mind was not so dangerous for the rest of Eve's gameplay, I would pity them. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:45:00 -
[47] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. no, timers just allow the two fleets to be in the same place at the same time *facepalm* 0/10 troll, too obvious. nobody can be this stupid. i can imagine how a person ignorant carebear who's never left concord's teet wouldn't realise this but timers are the way to facilitate important fights in a single sharded game across multiple timezones they allow fights to happen at all scales, instead of structure pingpong which'd be the shitfest happening if timers didn't exist
cute argument, except that it suggests that the only possible alternative to the current system is a "structure ping pong"
naive at best, dumb as crap at worst. |
Dave Stark
4251
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:50:00 -
[48] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Dave Stark wrote:gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know. Because they are told to. These poor people would rather be part of a huge clusterfuck, wasting their time, as opposed to actually DOING something in the game. Their emotional state cries out for acceptance in a large group, at the cost of anything else. If their hive mind was not so dangerous for the rest of Eve's gameplay, I would pity them.
ok freud, calm down. |
Ivory Kantenu
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 21:52:00 -
[49] - Quote
Sadly, the only thing these fights are good for these days are pretty screenshots.
http://i.imgur.com/iD5Kfop.png Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10040
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:00:00 -
[50] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Because they are told to. These poor people would rather be part of a huge clusterfuck, wasting their time, as opposed to actually DOING something in the game. Their emotional state cries out for acceptance in a large group, at the cost of anything else.
If their hive mind was not so dangerous for the rest of Eve's gameplay, I would pity them.
thank you for these invaluable insights into the mentality of the nullsec player who is deluded enough to enjoy large fights more than, say, full spectrum mission running Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
|
Doji Okakura
229
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:01:00 -
[51] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:wasting their time Peons flock together. Anyone with half a brain isn't in sov and wants nothing to do with it. |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
694
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Too many caps, too many caps on all sides.
Two whole fleets of pretty much useless domis didn't help your dlreads on their jump in. We're winning the war if it says so on CAOD! -á
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10040
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:01:00 -
[53] - Quote
"the absolute best way to enjoy eve online is 23/7 L4 grinding" ~ dinsdale piranha Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2228
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:05:00 -
[54] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:cute argument, except that it suggests that the only possible alternative to the current system is a "structure ping pong"
naive at best, dumb as crap at worst. i am awaiting your no-doubt brilliant idea for creating opportunity and necessity for defending and attacking fleets to engage each other over structures without need for timers (which you have claimed to be the cause of enormous unmanageable fleets with no justification and contrary to people whose opinions actually count for something)
i do not expect much |
Dave Stark
4251
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:06:00 -
[55] - Quote
Andski wrote:"the absolute best way to enjoy eve online is 23/7 Armour Incursions" ~ dinsdale piranha
think that might be a tad more accurate. |
Paul Tsukaya
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:07:00 -
[56] - Quote
It would be pretty sweet if the servers could handle it.
They can't.
Oh well. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1988
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:08:00 -
[57] - Quote
Andski wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Because they are told to. These poor people would rather be part of a huge clusterfuck, wasting their time, as opposed to actually DOING something in the game. Their emotional state cries out for acceptance in a large group, at the cost of anything else.
If their hive mind was not so dangerous for the rest of Eve's gameplay, I would pity them. thank you for these invaluable insights into the mentality of the nullsec player who is deluded enough to enjoy large fights more than, say, full spectrum mission running
I anyone "enjoyed" that fight , then they more than likely "enjoy" being beaten and whipped in some BDSM club. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Whitmore
Far East Inc Darkness of Despair
47
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:10:00 -
[58] - Quote
This guy just say what we all think.
That was bad.
P.S. 5 hours in jump-in tunnel and being damaged.. |
Thead Enco
Killing is Business Get Off My Lawn
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:10:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Their emotional state cries out for acceptance in a large group, at the cost of anything else.
Must of been "That guy" in high school who had their school clothes thrown into the "showers" during gym class on a daily basis.....
"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king."
Tywin Lannister-á |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1988
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:14:00 -
[60] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Andski wrote:"the absolute best way to enjoy eve online is 23/7 Armour Incursions" ~ dinsdale piranha think that might be a tad more accurate.
Actually, it is more like low sec exploration and ratting (love those clone tags) / dodging gatecamps in low sec while moving stuff / mission running / incursions / wildly insane forum posting 23/7. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
|
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:14:00 -
[61] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:They waited around? Was it for a timer to end?....... They wanted a capital fight. What we got was something nobody wanted or enjoyed.
Maybe if you jumped your caps in before 1500 subcaps they would have loaded grid, or was it a strategic ploy to once again moan about capitals.
It was terrible FC decision on CFC side that lost you those dreads blaming it on anything else is idiotic. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10041
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:15:00 -
[62] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I anyone "enjoyed" that fight , then they more than likely "enjoy" being beaten and whipped in some BDSM club.
some people still find it more fun than shooting red crosses over and over in some blinged legion, so Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Haimee Khema
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:17:00 -
[63] - Quote
Bros
Grouphug. itsk. itsk |
Vespiidius
Cerberus Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:18:00 -
[64] - Quote
Nullsec players take a month off. Let CCP know that you will not be resubbing and the reason is the nullsec game being unplayable. Instead of whinning about blobs breaking the servers, which they shouldn't, or making excuses about code, which you wouldn't accept from any other "service provider," put your money where your mouth is and let CCP know that we don't want new pretty paint jobs or stupid deployables, we want a game that works.
CCP's excuses about code, server's etc... are boring, old and at this point, negligent. Nullsec is where people use blobs and capitals. They should be able to use those items without the battle taking fifteen hours because each command takes ten minutes to get through the servers. It's inexcusable.
Eve isn't Real. Eve is Broken. |
Alice Ituin
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:19:00 -
[65] - Quote
Andski wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I anyone "enjoyed" that fight , then they more than likely "enjoy" being beaten and whipped in some BDSM club. some people still find it more fun than shooting red crosses over and over in some blinged legion, so
Yeah, the same people that enjoy watching paint dry. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10041
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:23:00 -
[66] - Quote
Alice Ituin wrote:Yeah, the same people that enjoy watching paint dry.
yes let me tell you how much more EXCITING it is to run the same incursion sites over and over in the same ship just to watch some imaginary wallet grow Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1138
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:28:00 -
[67] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:WarFireV wrote:In times of war their can often be hostile relations between both sides. Forum spam, local bashing, lolgaming news sites, we have all seen it.
But today I feel everyone can come together, who right now, fight against each other in HED-GP. Everyone can come to an agreement on one thing.
Fix Sov
This is terrible, this is not epic, this is not grand, this is not amazing. This is just putting a gun to the head of a blind an deaf man and yet this is also EvEs largest capital battle ever.
While the battle today is not the fault of CCP, we are merely people playing the game you created for us, it can at lest put a remind that something more needs to be done perhaps. The server can not handle these battles yet, but sov dictates they have to happen to take a single system.
I am not here to tell you how it can be done, CCP knows the code better then I and know what is possible and what is not. I just want to say that the current Sov system(which has been around longer then POS sov system of old) is sub-optimal to the current EvE player base. THen why in hell everytime someone suggest changes to move sov in favor of more smaller scaled engagements with valid small scale targets that hurt the sov.. both sides.. yours and yoru enemy call thes epeopel stupid? No.. you do not want fun fights. You like the status quo... you want that.. and now you pay for it with fights that are not fun at all. Bro me and my people? This is about togetherness over something that is broken not about stupid propaganda.
RE READ what I posted. Everytime someone post THE SOLUTIOSN, all the blocs in power now call these ideas stupid.. because they will chagne the status quo and remove them from absolute power.
No You do nto want to solve the problem, if you wanted you would nto be on ANY of the super blocs.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1989
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:30:00 -
[68] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alice Ituin wrote:Yeah, the same people that enjoy watching paint dry. yes let me tell you how much more EXCITING it is to run the same incursion sites over and over in the same ship just to watch some imaginary wallet grow
I think a more appropriate analogy would be for me to jump into an incursion site in my blinged out Legion, and then take 12 hours to run the site, coming back to my computer every 10 minutes to shoot another red cross, while gabbing with friends in Teamspeak, or watching TV. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2228
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:WarFireV wrote:Bro me and my people? This is about togetherness over something that is broken not about stupid propaganda. RE READ what I posted. Everytime someone post THE SOLUTIOSN, all the blocs in power now call these ideas stupid.. because they will chagne the status quo and remove them from absolute power. No You do nto want to solve the problem, if you wanted you would nto be on ANY of the super blocs. you want something to be done instead of nothing. he wants something to be done instead of nothing. don't argue about what particular thing just yet, just agree something has to happen |
Desmond Strickler
End-of-Line
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:40:00 -
[70] - Quote
Null sec sounds like amazing fun!
The Black Prince of Wormholes a.k.a The Black Prince of The East
Professional Nereus Gang Fighter
Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy |
|
trader joes Ichinumi
Waltaratzor Corporation
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:42:00 -
[71] - Quote
Paragannon wrote:
The battle is not over but n3pl will surely come out in front, because it is completely unthinkable to jump anything more into this fight, why would we? No one is having fun.
Sounds like n3pl beat you at your own game.
"We don't want to ruin the game. We want to ruin your game."-Mitanni |
Desmond Strickler
End-of-Line
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:48:00 -
[72] - Quote
Vespiidius wrote:Nullsec players take a month off. Let CCP know that you will not be resubbing and the reason is the nullsec game being unplayable. Instead of whinning about blobs breaking the servers, which they shouldn't, or making excuses about code, which you wouldn't accept from any other "service provider," put your money where your mouth is and let CCP know that we don't want new pretty paint jobs or stupid deployables, we want a game that works.
CCP's excuses about code, server's etc... are boring, old and at this point, negligent. Nullsec is where people use blobs and capitals. They should be able to use those items without the battle taking fifteen hours because each command takes ten minutes to get through the servers. It's inexcusable.
Eve isn't Real. Eve is Broken.
lol The Black Prince of Wormholes a.k.a The Black Prince of The East
Professional Nereus Gang Fighter
Part-Time Moon Bear and Full-Time Black Guy |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1685
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 22:49:00 -
[73] - Quote
Desmond Strickler wrote:Null sec sounds like amazing fun!
it used to be. like 6 years ago There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
trader joes Ichinumi
Waltaratzor Corporation
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:04:00 -
[74] - Quote
Nooodlzs wrote:baltec1 wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:They waited around? Was it for a timer to end?....... They wanted a capital fight. What we got was something nobody wanted or enjoyed. Maybe if you jumped your caps in before 1500 subcaps they would have loaded grid, or was it a strategic ploy to once again moan about capitals. It was terrible FC decision on CFC side that lost you those dreads blaming it on anything else is idiotic.
This is true. CFC should have known that sending the fleets in like that would likely cause massive lag. |
Kinis Deren
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
259
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:09:00 -
[75] - Quote
NIPS
NAPS
Coalitions
Blue Lists
..... and you are all QQ'ing about something you've all had a hand in creating
Thank goodness I don't do any sov null. Into PVP & looking for small gang focused, NPC Null corp? Check out The Nyan Cat Pirates!
Corp CEO looking for an easy going, none sov, PVP alliance? Join Disband. today! |
Edmark I
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:09:00 -
[76] - Quote
|
Miasmos
Aliastra Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:27:00 -
[77] - Quote
Someone has clearly gained a level in decision making.
"Make the best player event you can to get some publicity for the game!" -> *Leads highsec lemmings to a nullsec gatecamp, hilarity ensues.
"Dear gamemaster/dev, will the node hold if we jump in?" -> "Of course, this will bear 5k. Jump right in!" *goes to write placeholder press releases about a major nullsec fight |
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:40:00 -
[78] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:said it once, will say again:
the root cause is that the sov system rewards blobbing in the form of timers and timing windows.
come up with a system that gets rid of the timing window aspect, and the blobbing will take a sharp downturn.
You are thinking wrong. People blob because it gives isk benefits. Think about it.
Why would ppl want to take something in the first place?
Why they team up?
Its all about the isk
Eve is ying and yang. Fixing blobbing is making it more rewarding to not team up.... but unfortualy thats the Yang from eve's coregame play: teamwork |
Nicemeries
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:41:00 -
[79] - Quote
Did CCP even make a statement about this huge failure? |
Thead Enco
Killing is Business Get Off My Lawn
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:42:00 -
[80] - Quote
Nicemeries wrote:Did CCP even make a statement about this huge failure?
"The logs show nothing"
"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king."
Tywin Lannister-á |
|
Bonaventured
Gladius Veritatis Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 23:52:00 -
[81] - Quote
I am looking forward for BBC to tell us how amazing was the largest capital fight in history of computer games. And even more, for the CCP CEO to come to this forum and apologise for this historic fuckup. |
dantes inferno
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:02:00 -
[82] - Quote
All what you'll have is CCP Sonisomething explaining you how ESS is good for EvE. That's it. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
300
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:11:00 -
[83] - Quote
dantes inferno wrote:All what you'll have is CCP Sonisomething explaining you how ESS is good for EvE. That's it. and something about nerfing capital turrets (again) because a mod *might* be overheated in a "specific* situation of a particular wormhole |
Leidmis
Orichalcos Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:27:00 -
[84] - Quote
trader joes Ichinumi wrote:Paragannon wrote:
The battle is not over but n3pl will surely come out in front, because it is completely unthinkable to jump anything more into this fight, why would we? No one is having fun.
Sounds like n3pl beat you at your own game. "We don't want to ruin the game. We want to ruin your game."-Mitanni
"It is not fun, but it is absolutely necessary if you plan to achieve system control first, giving you a significant tactical advantage. As such, almost 1 hour before the timer approached, we had entered system and moved in around the station, evenly orbiting with several fleets, providing ourselves a position almost entirely immune to hostile bomber fleets." -Goon FC during Fountain War
Goon tears are best tears. |
Toshiroma McDiesel
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
192
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:29:00 -
[85] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know.
And the PVP'er keep saying mining is boring I"m not really the Evil One, I'm just his answering service. |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1182
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:32:00 -
[86] - Quote
posting in thread where people get what they should and still they whine about it The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
327
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:44:00 -
[87] - Quote
Nicemeries wrote:Did CCP even make a statement about this huge failure?
Even now, emails are being sent out to make sure that all CCP employees know that they are to pretend that this fight never happened. |
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
854
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:48:00 -
[88] - Quote
Toshiroma McDiesel wrote:Dave Stark wrote:gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know. And the PVP'er keep saying mining is boring
Whoa, 10% tidi is bad, but it's still way better than mining.
Just for saying that I hope you have to mine in 10% tidi someday. |
Toshiroma McDiesel
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
193
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 00:58:00 -
[89] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:Toshiroma McDiesel wrote:Dave Stark wrote:gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know. And the PVP'er keep saying mining is boring Whoa, 10% tidi is bad, but it's still way better than mining. Just for saying that I hope you have to mine in 10% tidi someday.
Not going to happen.. I can do this thing called "GO MINE SOMEWHERE ELSE". It's a simple concept, too many people in my area, I move to a different system!! I know, I know, it takes a lot of thought power to come up with that, but while your waiting in that 4 hour jump tunnel or 1 hour cycle times, you should have plenty of time to wrap your head around that idea I"m not really the Evil One, I'm just his answering service. |
Aaliyah Tash-Murkon
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 01:52:00 -
[90] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Wolf Kruol wrote:Agreed with OP,
This is nonsense expectations for EVE's future. I'm still waiting to get back into the battle.. **** at this point I don't care if goons kills me so I can just get back to GXK...
BUT I CAN'T log on...
So CCP ether move me to Keberz or kill me.. Ya I petitioned CCP to kill me so I can get back to playing eve... HED is DEAD! I wouldn't bother, only titan DDs seem to be working now. The dreads were lost the second they jumped.
it is very strange that Titan dds keep cycling but siege and other stuff gets stuck, there might be something wrong in that code their.
|
|
Tronjay the'3rd
IGNOTUS AGENDA Cult of War
46
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 01:56:00 -
[91] - Quote
I was there and must say Kuddos to CFC and RUS for bringing the fight and have the blazzz to jump into this TIDI mess.
Nevertheless this 10 hour fight was one of the most remarkable i ever had
p.s. peeps are still fighting
sà¦FÇàn+îF¬¡TüôS¦ƒpÇéµòàFâ+FÇîtñ¦S¦ïS+ìFâ+n+îtö¿FÇîtñ¦S¦ïS+ìtö¿n+îF+æFÇîtñ¦S¦ïTüán+îTüáFÇîtñ¦S¦ïF+æ
Sun Tzu -¬ |
interesangt
Artic Drilling Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 02:26:00 -
[92] - Quote
conclusion.. remove caps from game, sad to say this, but there aint no other way.. |
Raylucy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 02:56:00 -
[93] - Quote
dantes inferno wrote: We will laugh when subscription will go down again (already happening anyway...)
if by that you mean less goons playing, then yes, im pretty sure that there will be a lot of people laughing and enjoying that too.
baltec1 wrote:What we got was something nobody wanted or enjoyed. from the looks of it, the other side enjoyed the turkey shoot and the amount of tears that will flood this thread and probably many others. |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
112
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 03:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
If this fight did show anything, it's that subcaps are worthless in sov fights. An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department. Were you wronged by a member of our fine space guild? We can get you the compensation you deserve. |
Arboledaw
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 03:49:00 -
[95] - Quote
Totally agree with original post. Eve was not only not fun today, it was downright miserable. I love the game but CCP, step up soon or my patience will likely run out. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2013
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 04:11:00 -
[96] - Quote
War's over anyway folks.
If the BOTLRD agreement (goon's term, not mine) is legit, then PL just stood down from invading any goon system than goons consider valuable. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Dalilah
Xenobytes Stain Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 04:16:00 -
[97] - Quote
Yesterday I invited my old friend who was very intersted in EVE Online to watch "the biggest capital fight ever". After end of "epic battle in HED-GP" he said "I can't beleive you guys paying money for wasting of your weekend for nothing" and his wish to pay for 2 accounts become a wish to pay for 0 accounts. |
Michael Escoto
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 04:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
I know its hard (for some) but i'd like to get a honest answer from the parties involved in HED-GP:
What was different here, compared to the recent big fleet engagements? Fountain, 6VDT, or even Asakai (iirc, was not reinforced)? |
Eryn Velasquez
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:16:00 -
[99] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:
it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff.
We wouldn't need blobs if it wasn't for the huge amounts of HP we need to burn through. Todays fight only happened because the N3/PL capital blob waited around for us.
I personally think, when there is a massive concentration of Caps and Scaps allready waiting, why don't you change the tactics? Get this blob bubbled and capture it where it is, and take care of 4 or 5 other systems. The numbers are on your side, or not? GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
406
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:17:00 -
[100] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:Toshiroma McDiesel wrote:Dave Stark wrote:gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know. And the PVP'er keep saying mining is boring Whoa, 10% tidi is bad, but it's still way better than mining. Just for saying that I hope you have to mine in 10% tidi someday.
And you would be able to tell the difference if afk mining? |
|
Ivoryman
Silent Service Operations Blanket Men
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:21:00 -
[101] - Quote
When I caught wind this might be in the makings, I bought a few hundred billions worth of trit, pyer, and mex 36 hours before on the speculation something stupid like this would happen! THANK YOU ALL!! <3 Please, continue! Seriously... round 2? |
Tavian Blake
LOST IDEA C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:21:00 -
[102] - Quote
I totally confirm with the OP... dunno what to add there.
CCP plz make Drones smaller... the Capitals hiding behind them. |
Toshiroma McDiesel
Lupus Draconis Dragehund
196
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:34:00 -
[103] - Quote
Ivoryman wrote:When I caught wind this might be in the makings, I bought a few hundred billions worth of trit, pyer, and mex 36 hours before on the speculation something stupid like this would happen! THANK YOU ALL!! <3 Please, continue! Seriously... round 2?
I know right? To think that some of the ammo I produce might be involved...and that demand might pick up a bit to cover all that was spent, even .001%, brings a small flutter to my heart I"m not really the Evil One, I'm just his answering service. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:40:00 -
[104] - Quote
Why you people engage in activities like this that are not fun for anyone involved is completely beyond me. And not just once, but regularly.
I made a point of staying the hell out of Null until sov was properly fixed. That was 3 years ago. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
4151
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 05:48:00 -
[105] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Too many caps, too many caps on all sides.
infinitely respawning resources
Get rid of that and cap fleets become quit a cherished thing
and battles such as these would be followed by battles over the salvage |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1470
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:03:00 -
[106] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. no, timers just allow the two fleets to be in the same place at the same time No I is timers. Pre-timer and Pre-Cap we did really well finding each other and having fleet fights.
They were not 1000 vs 1000 because
a) there were not enough subscriptions for that
b) most important, they were not planned 24 hours ahead so that everyone could pile on with prior knowledge something was happening.
The majority of EvE pvp needs to be unplanned, natural. If spies do their job there will be big laggy battles where you disconnect and can't log back in so it still needs a fix but medium sized battles should be fun at least.
I was in HED prior to CFC arriving, at 1.5k it was not bad at all. At 3.9k it was at 1 frame every 30 seconds before my brand new high end PC locked up and I was unable to log back in.
timers suck. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9883
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:18:00 -
[107] - Quote
Nooodlzs wrote:
Maybe if you jumped your caps in before 1500 subcaps they would have loaded grid, or was it a strategic ploy to once again moan about capitals.
It was terrible FC decision on CFC side that lost you those dreads blaming it on anything else is idiotic.
There was a mobile jammer. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9883
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:20:00 -
[108] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. no, timers just allow the two fleets to be in the same place at the same time No it is timers, at least in large part. Pre-timer and Pre-Cap we did really well finding each other and having fleet fights. They were not 1000 vs 1000 because a) there were not enough subscriptions for that b) most important, they were not planned 24 hours ahead so that everyone could pile on with prior knowledge something was happening. The majority of EvE pvp needs to be unplanned, natural. If spies do their job there will be big laggy battles where you disconnect and can't log back in so it still needs a fix but medium sized battles should be fun at least. I was in HED prior to CFC arriving, at 1.5k it was not bad at all. At 3.9k it was at 1 frame every 30 seconds before my brand new high end PC locked up and I was unable to log back in. timers suck.
Timers are the only thing that allow you to hold space and defend it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
1047
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:23:00 -
[109] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Why you people engage in activities like this that are not fun for anyone involved is completely beyond me. And not just once, but regularly.
I made a point of staying the hell out of Null until sov was properly fixed. That was 3 years ago.
Everyone will show up for a significant fight, if they care about their space. Even knowing that you'll spend 8 hours on a 30 min fight. And living in Null beats the heck out of Highsec, or low these days. That being said, it seems like CCP has bugged the code worse than ever, this fight reminded me of Y-2, where PL Titans jumped in late and died where they stood, never loaded.
I foolishly jumped in late and spent 3 hours in the warp tunnel before I saw local chat, grid never loaded. I had to log three times and reboot my computer before I finally got in, 5.5 hours after I jumped. My Nyx was on grid for over two hours before i was actually able to pilot it....
CCP needs to shelf the fluff and garbage and do some serious work on the code before this simply gets to be too much for some people...
CCP, trading shiny pictures for playability since 2003.. EvE, a cutting edge game. The only game to provide Matrix style gameplay for the masses! (trouble is, most people don't have 9 hours to waste on a one hour fight.) |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1470
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:24:00 -
[110] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:it's timers because they dictate a time and place for people to create the largest possible blobs of the largest possible stuff. no, timers just allow the two fleets to be in the same place at the same time No it is timers, at least in large part. Pre-timer and Pre-Cap we did really well finding each other and having fleet fights. They were not 1000 vs 1000 because a) there were not enough subscriptions for that b) most important, they were not planned 24 hours ahead so that everyone could pile on with prior knowledge something was happening. The majority of EvE pvp needs to be unplanned, natural. If spies do their job there will be big laggy battles where you disconnect and can't log back in so it still needs a fix but medium sized battles should be fun at least. I was in HED prior to CFC arriving, at 1.5k it was not bad at all. At 3.9k it was at 1 frame every 30 seconds before my brand new high end PC locked up and I was unable to log back in. timers suck. Timers are the only thing that allow you to hold space and defend it. Really, so how did Curse alliance and Stain alliance and all the other alliances hold their space for so long in the pre-timer era. I was in Stain Alliance back in the day and can confirm there was space holding and wars between space holding alliances with timers. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9883
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:34:00 -
[111] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Really, so how did Curse alliance and Stain alliance and all the other alliances hold their space for so long in the pre-timer era. I was in Stain Alliance back in the day and can confirm there was space holding and wars between space holding alliances without timers.
There was a fraction of the people back then.
Today we have capital blobs that can grind down 100+ systems in as little as a single weekend. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Apocryphal Noise
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
91
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:36:00 -
[112] - Quote
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:Blue standings vs another corp/Alliance should cost isk. More blues = more tax.
Thats all im saying, think about it.
Stupid. We've been over this since the dawn of time, any sort of artificially limiting system on alliance size or blue lists will be circumvented by players. The CFC for example, let's say standings didn't exist. Turn on alliance column in overview, do not shoot any of the ~10 alliances in the CFC. Wow, that was hard. |
Beautiful Frelcia
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:43:00 -
[113] - Quote
CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1470
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:46:00 -
[114] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Really, so how did Curse alliance and Stain alliance and all the other alliances hold their space for so long in the pre-timer era. I was in Stain Alliance back in the day and can confirm there was space holding and wars between space holding alliances without timers.
There was a fraction of the people back then. Today we have capital blobs that can grind down 100+ systems in as little as a single weekend. There was also a fraction of the server performance too. There were no structures to grind back then but still there was space holding and space defending. What does that mean?
I think it means the emphasis from 'ownership' being a 'we live here and we'll kill you if you enter' to "we dropped an npc module with 10 million hp that says we own this and if you shoot it it'll become invulnerable giving us time to bring our entire coalition tomorrow" was a bad idea.
Perhaps fixing sov is just removing sov.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
939
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 06:48:00 -
[115] - Quote
Beautiful Frelcia wrote:CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.
Can I have your stuff then? Because you will never see the issues 'resolved' since you will just pile larger blobs on till the node reaches the same point, no matter how CCP has upgraded their servers this has held true. |
Honest Blob
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 07:26:00 -
[116] - Quote
Before all you tards in CFC start qqing about jump in lag or spending hours in a cyno tunnel, maby your coalitions should have been smarter, you know like staging the dreads in system in the STATION YOU CAN DOCK IN before the fight and used those 1000 domis to establish station control to assist on the undock. But hurdur that would require thinking. Cant have that now can we, Oops its ccp's fault. |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1185
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 07:38:00 -
[117] - Quote
Beautiful Frelcia wrote:CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.
2 less goons in the game?
PERFECT The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Roxie Glitz
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 07:39:00 -
[118] - Quote
Who of the CSM Team is capable of solving those problems together with ccp? I think several nullsec people are in csm right now, we should talk to them |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
102
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 07:39:00 -
[119] - Quote
Rekkr Nordgard wrote:Nicemeries wrote:Did CCP even make a statement about this huge failure? Even now, emails are being sent out to make sure that all CCP employees know that they are to pretend that this fight never happened. Well, it didn't, did it? |
Michael Escoto
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 08:00:00 -
[120] - Quote
Honest Blob wrote:Before all you tards in CFC start qqing about jump in lag or spending hours in a cyno tunnel, maby your coalitions should have been smarter, you know like staging the dreads in system in the STATION YOU CAN DOCK IN before the fight and used those 1000 domis to establish station control to assist on the undock. But hurdur that would require thinking. Cant have that now can we, Oops its ccp's fault.
But you can't refute that there IS a problem with getting in, right? Just drop politics/agendas for a moment.. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9886
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 08:07:00 -
[121] - Quote
Michael Escoto wrote:Honest Blob wrote:Before all you tards in CFC start qqing about jump in lag or spending hours in a cyno tunnel, maby your coalitions should have been smarter, you know like staging the dreads in system in the STATION YOU CAN DOCK IN before the fight and used those 1000 domis to establish station control to assist on the undock. But hurdur that would require thinking. Cant have that now can we, Oops its ccp's fault. But you can't refute that there IS a problem with getting in, right? Just drop politics/agendas for a moment..
Most of PL/N3 and rusrus/CFC agree with each other. Sov null is very broken and fights like this just downright suck for everyone. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4749
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 08:18:00 -
[122] - Quote
You can start by removing structure notification mails.
If an alliance is actually using the space the structures are in, they will know if it is attacked and take action. However, if they are not using the space then those structures will be removed over time and people who do actually utilize the space, will setup shop there instead.
If alliances want to continue to control the space they have, they will have to spread out a bit, thus, thinning the blob some. If they still choose to all dock up into one staging system, then their territory will shrink accordingly. Either way, it will be far better than controlling vast amounts of regions from just a couple stations far away. . |
Pok Nibin
Filial Pariahs
195
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 08:25:00 -
[123] - Quote
Can't say I'm personally involved, but the chatter on HED-GP piqued my interest so I GOOGLED IT! (mua haaaaaa...oops.)
After reading the below linked page, it came as no surprise to me "why there" instead of "lots of other systems." If you read this (should you not already know) you may see why, TOO.
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/HED-GP_(System)
AFTER reading it, you might reach the same conclusion I did...seems pretty cool as a transit choke-point just asking for trouble. It's like the many warring tribes using the same watering hole. You either call a truce when at the watering hole (or transiting HED-GP) or the fight moves to the watering hole (rather on some more ... wholesome ... battleground.)
If it's seen as an endemic or chronic problem, then a CCP fix would be to open a few more routes into that region of space. That would have the effect of spreading out the warfare. But, then, there may be those who disagree. There may be those who LIKE that there's a choke-point. Then, of course, the matter becomes one of LAG. Interesting what a map can do, eh? Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
Beautiful Frelcia
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 09:03:00 -
[124] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Beautiful Frelcia wrote:CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.
2 less goons in the game? PERFECT
you dont get It. Its not about politics', meta gaming etc. Its about service we are paying for every month. I do understand issues with eve code. But for how long low we have lag/cluster/you name it issues.
and yet cccp is coming with some useless ideas pretending everything else is ok. |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 09:07:00 -
[125] - Quote
Impose the same cap as in Jita, in every system. Problem solved.
P.S. Yeah I know it means first to blob wins, but at least it'll be over quickly. |
MonkeyMagic Thiesant
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
19
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 09:25:00 -
[126] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:Impose the same cap as in Jita, in every system. Problem solved.
That's a pretty terrible solution. On the other hand, you could make a pretty convincing argument it's less terrible than the current mess :-)
Surely there has to be something better.......... |
Mah Boobz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 09:32:00 -
[127] - Quote
MonkeyMagic Thiesant wrote:Mah Boobz wrote:Impose the same cap as in Jita, in every system. Problem solved.
it's less terrible than the current mess :-)
Exactly |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8649
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 10:25:00 -
[128] - Quote
Raylucy wrote:from the looks of it, the other side enjoyed the turkey shoot and the amount of tears that will flood this thread and probably many others. Nobody's angry about losing dreads. Nobody's angry about tidi. They're angry about the game not working despite the tidi. My EVE Videos |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
71
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 10:26:00 -
[129] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:Fix Sov
This is terrible, this is not epic, this is not grand, this is not amazing. This is just putting a gun to the head of a blind an deaf man and yet this is also EvEs largest capital battle ever. "Ha-ha! Go cry me a river, loser!" That's what you were saying when RUSRUS complained about drone lags. Now I see people come to realize that it's not about winning and loosing battles, but rather about having emotions in those battles other than disappointment.
I for one support this petition and urge CCP to enforce more efforts in actually making large scale battles playable. If you advertise this feature - deliver it. If you dont deliver it - stop advertising and fooling your customers. |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1188
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 10:36:00 -
[130] - Quote
Beautiful Frelcia wrote:March rabbit wrote:Beautiful Frelcia wrote:CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.
2 less goons in the game? PERFECT you dont get It. Its not about politics', meta gaming etc it is actually.
99% of Eve players don't have such problems. Why? Because they don't make blobs and overload nodes.
It's YOU have chosen this playstyle. No one forced you to go there. YOU did it.
We all know that blobs make TiDi and lags. And we KNOW that it is impossible for CCP to fix it any time soon. Whining on forums does nothing for it. It is just politics and meta gaming you mentioned. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8649
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 10:39:00 -
[131] - Quote
Honest Blob wrote:Before all you tards in CFC start qqing about jump in lag or spending hours in a cyno tunnel, maby your coalitions should have been smarter, you know like staging the dreads in system in the STATION YOU CAN DOCK IN before the fight and used those 1000 domis to establish station control to assist on the undock. But hurdur that would require thinking. Cant have that now can we, Oops its ccp's fault. The cyno is needed for positioning, you cannot rely on simply warping since it's far too easy to disrupt that. They could have been brought in before the subcaps except for the fact that Rubicon recently introduced a (rather excellent) module that allows you to disrupt that as well. The subcaps were needed in order to clear the way, so to speak. My EVE Videos |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8649
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 10:41:00 -
[132] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Beautiful Frelcia wrote:March rabbit wrote:Beautiful Frelcia wrote:CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.
2 less goons in the game? PERFECT you dont get It. Its not about politics', meta gaming etc it is actually. 99% of Eve players don't have such problems. Why? Because they don't make blobs and overload nodes. It's YOU have chosen this playstyle. No one forced you to go there. YOU did it. We all know that blobs make TiDi and lags. And we KNOW that it is impossible for CCP to fix it any time soon. Whining on forums does nothing for it. It is just politics and meta gaming you mentioned. Blobbing is a consequence of the mechanics involved. It's no more a choice to blob than it is to capture pieces in chess. You have to do it if you have any intention of winning against a decently competent opponent. My EVE Videos |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
719
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 10:53:00 -
[133] - Quote
yesterday was worse than the old 1k fights way back in 2008 before TiDi. but at least back then my drones worked on my dread when everything else was stuck cycling. plus back then it didn't take almost 2h to load a system
first round went to you ccp. you clearly won this battle. OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Leon Moss
brotherhood of desman Darkness of Despair
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 11:43:00 -
[134] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: It's YOU have chosen this playstyle. No one forced you to go there. YOU did it.
You kind of fail with your reasoning. It's true that this play-style generates the most stress on the system. It's also the play-style that CCP relies heavily on for their marketing and advertising. You don't get ads about 5vs5 frigsize fights in Heyd, now do you? You read and watch them clips about thousands of players having a go at each other in massive null-sec fights. But all that is besides the point, since this is a valid play style as any other. And as such, it should be supported to a full extent. If it can't be supported to a full extent, I'd expect the owners to come out and say: "Hey guys, we can't support that much stress on our system, let's see what we can do to avoid a bad experience?". But that doesn't happen ever, does it. Instead of admitting to a problem, CCP keeps encouraging it to happen, resulting in bad experiences for many players. I honestly can't see any solution to that, except admitting that CCP won. |
ElQuirko
Black Dragon Fighting Society The Devil's Tattoo
3197
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 11:52:00 -
[135] - Quote
dantes inferno wrote: fix tidi...
Obviously you never saw pre-tidi fights. Lag is a fact of life, tidi mitigates it. Dodixie > Hek |
Kogi Kaishakunin
Enso Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:07:00 -
[136] - Quote
I left null sec because after about 2yrs i cant stand anymore sov / blob / tidi. If CCP thinks these fights are a great advert for the game, then their marketing department should be forced to log in and endure these type of events for their full duration (and then make them pay RL money for it).
Fully endorse the OP's statement - fix SOV.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1139
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:11:00 -
[137] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Why you people engage in activities like this that are not fun for anyone involved is completely beyond me. And not just once, but regularly.
I made a point of staying the hell out of Null until sov was properly fixed. That was 3 years ago.
Just as when someoen wake up in the morning and go to work? "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet Intrepid Crossing
197
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:15:00 -
[138] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:I wonder, if CCP hadn't spent all that money on Dust and WOD, and instead, put it into the Eve servers (were the money was made) if we could actually have the fights CCP brag about?
I agree. Dust was a failure. |
Diivil
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:20:00 -
[139] - Quote
Also as long as TIDI exists, separate sov objectives in different systems is incredibly hard to pull off in a way that it stays fair. Let's say I'm defending my sov and I need to defend in three different systems. It is in my favour to wait for hostiles to choose where to deploy their strongest force, deploy my strongest force against their weakest while trying to cause TIDI in any other system that is not where my strongest force is. I will try to kill the weakest fleets fast while their strongest fleet is slowed down by TIDII.
And don't even try to argue that causing TIDI is an exploit. I can put a system in to TIDI by having my 50 man fleet change ships or jump gates. Maybe I'm just indecisive what doctrine to bring or where to engage, definitely not causing TIDI there at all. Or would you make it an exploit to travel gates or change ships while a hostile fleet is your system?
Of course you could force TIDI to be the same in each system that are part of the sov system but I don't think CCP is willing to degrade server performance on purpose. |
RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet Intrepid Crossing
197
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:20:00 -
[140] - Quote
Watched the fight from a tv set in my retreiver yesterday. Was slightly depressed by the amount of slowness and flashy flash there was. Didn't understand what was going on most of the time. The idiots on twitch kept making stupid comments distracting what was really happening. Also whoever shot the video should have closed local or something, that god awful spam in loal was terrible. Next time lets mix it up a bit and have the fight in an asteroid belt. |
|
Raylucy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:47:00 -
[141] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Raylucy wrote:from the looks of it, the other side enjoyed the turkey shoot and the amount of tears that will flood this thread and probably many others. Nobody's angry about losing dreads. Nobody's angry about tidi. They're angry about the game not working despite the tidi. not from what I saw, the whole "lets get ccp to apologise to us for their screw up and get them to reimburse our lost ships like usual when we welp hard" comments posted over and over in one of the streams for last nights fight and a few other places, which was most likely ordered by dbrb as the upcoming reimbursement phase. lets face it, when he orders something you guys jump, you don't need to ask "how high?" because you guys are pretty much used to it.
The game has been around for 10yrs+ now and you'd think goons would of learned from experience not to do something like this with the amount of numbers in the system and tidi. There has been countless times I can think of personally where a fleet welped due to desync jump in issues and I'm pretty sure that any goon who could at least think for themselves would easily think of several too and know yesterday was a bad idea but the welping still happened and it should be accepted |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13573
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 12:58:00 -
[142] - Quote
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
302
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:10:00 -
[143] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
|
Xavier Quo
Ashfell Celestial Corporation POD-SQUAD
72
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:21:00 -
[144] - Quote
Can someone explain to me why the complete removal of SOV etc is not a viable option?
as in, if you can defend a system, it's yours. If you can't, it isn't.
To me that would alleviate both;
-The growing blue doughnut by making a large portion of non-npc null unclaimed (as actual active defence is harder than dropping TCU's in dead systems and doing little else), giving smaller entities much more chance at claiming system(s), in a permanent or nomadic fashion.
-The concentration of fleets into technically unmanagable sizes, making intersystem warfare much more interesting in terms of strategy and tactics, smaller groupings across nodes, quicker flash conflicts arising from no notice timers, etc. ofc large battles would still occur but they would not be the only decisive
perhaps the addition of some defense unit deployables on gates, belts etc, with some mechanic to discourage turtling would be needed as well. would also promote interesting intrasystem conflicts as well rather than stressing one single grid every time a system is contested.
It does predicate the need for even small null sec corps to have a fairly global userbase, but for much more interesting conflicts that doesn't seem like such a bad tradeoff compared to what we have now.
I am sure this would've been discussed before, any links appreciated. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:27:00 -
[145] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
Do it.
|
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:35:00 -
[146] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
Well, 24 hour cooldown on capitals sounds extreme, but the scale of the Tranqulity universe is laughable at the moment. Everywhere is "neighbourhood" these days.
Maybe you assign your character/account to a given system as HQ and the cooldown increases the futher away from the HQ you get? (in addition to decreased jumprange) Ofcourse, people with alts will just get around this by having characters spread around, but it would somewhat hamper supercapital movements, since relativily few people got more than 1 titan/supercarrier. And jumpclones should not affect the HQ assignment.
I got several supers and normal capitals, and wont really enjoy having limitations to them. But at the same time I do not really see the current mechanics work satisfactory.
Its a discussion you should atleast bring up Malcanis.
|
Admiral Snowbird
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:36:00 -
[147] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
rebalancing/rework SOV and caps since 2010 - changes comming soon! (2027 or smth)
|
Doc Severide
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:37:00 -
[148] - Quote
A lot of complaints every time this happens. And it will happen again. You're not gonna change the behaviour of the players and CCP can't fix it.
The End... |
Rumtin
Imperium Technologies Get Off My Lawn
57
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:40:00 -
[149] - Quote
You're all going about this the wrong way. The problem isn't blobs that overload the nodes causing the server to crash. The problem isn't the sov mechanics and how it takes over 200+ people to grind them down. The problem isn't timers that ensure EVERYONE and their ******* mothers is online at one time to jump into a single system. The problem doesn't rest with CCP's slow response time to properly reinforce the node so the players play at 10% TiDi before they flat out disconnect.
The true problem lies in the lack of useless deployable objects, and the lack of nerfs null sec recieves. These talks about big fights will be fixed because there are new deployables that are in most cases, never going to be used as intended and are infact ALREADY being banned from use by several null sec alliances (ESS). The only way to fix lag is to make sure that you deploy the "Anti-Lag Mobile Depot" (available 2025).
Thanks to CCP's good friends over in EA, you can make sure all your troubles are washed away with all these new ideas of useless content that our development staff spent the past few months of time and money for your enjoyment!
Seriously CCP, time to pull your head out and stop wasting our money and your time. |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:55:00 -
[150] - Quote
Andski wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I anyone "enjoyed" that fight , then they more than likely "enjoy" being beaten and whipped in some BDSM club. some people still find it more fun than shooting red crosses over and over in some blinged legion, so
A little scary that you'd rather spend five hours watching your computer lag out than actually interact with your ship.
I bet even more people would rather shoot crosses than not play their blinged out dread for hours on end. Loooooooooow standards. I am not an alt of Chribba. |
|
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
260
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 13:56:00 -
[151] - Quote
Hyperbole about capital and jumping changes don't really help a whole lot. It would make people more frustrated then actually help EvE as a whole.
Lets just look back for a moment. Besides the fact that not everything in Dominion was implemented, one of the reasons it was put into place was so there would be more set piece battles. Now after many years and many fixes we may have reached the pinnacle of what is possible in set piece battles in EvE.
Like I said before CCP is not to blame for what happened, it just possibly shows that maybe something does need to changed. There is more then one way of going about it, but the first step is realizing something needs to happen.
|
Djana Libra
DAB The Unthinkables
348
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:00:00 -
[152] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:gotta say i'm watching a stream and it basically looks like 4000 pilots afk in bubbles. there's literally nothing visually interesting happening.
how you guys sit and tolerate this **** i'll never know.
multiple monitors, play bf4/dota2 on main screen while occasionally looking at the other screen to see if your guns have finally cycled |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
328
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:02:00 -
[153] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead. Sprinkle in some of the ideas floating around for making Supers easier to kill/easier to replace/just as tough to initially build, and then touch up sob mechanics, and CCP might be able to social engineer a solution to a software problem.
I am not an alt of Chribba. |
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:06:00 -
[154] - Quote
0.0 blob warefare has scaled up too much. Back in 2007 there were multiple small coalitions and now we have CFC and PLect coalition.
That is the real problem with the result that the fleets have grown. The exponential isk earning from being in a coalition makes capital cost pennies compared to gain income.
Getting other sov mechanics is only one side of the problem, the other side is the coalistion forming.
The true question is, what has led to these problems. I can identify several factors: -Too big coalistions -Too many supers -Too many HP (sov structures, supers ect) -Times requir formups
Now the why's: -Why are their too big coalistions: isk benefits -Why are there too many supers: due too much isk income alliance/coalitions (past & present) -Why is there too many HP: i dont know, ask CCP -Why are there timers that requir formups: i dont know, ask CCP
So basicly, its all about the isk. Solutions: -Tax forming coalistions soo much that it isnt worth it -Nerf alliacne/coalitions income soo much that they cant toss around free supers and reimbeurs fleet easly.
Its all about ISK and CCP (and thats also about isk)
|
Ospie
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:12:00 -
[155] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
This. Until force projection is nerfed hard nullsec is always going to throw as many people into a fight as they possibly can, and we're always going to be back to "whoever is there first is autowinnar". |
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:16:00 -
[156] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:Hyperbole about capital and jumping changes don't really help a whole lot. It would make people more frustrated then actually help EvE as a whole.
Lets just look back for a moment. Besides the fact that not everything in Dominion was implemented, one of the reasons it was put into place was so there would be more set piece battles. Now after many years and many fixes we may have reached the pinnacle of what is possible in set piece battles in EvE.
Like I said before CCP is not to blame for what happened, it just possibly shows that maybe something does need to changed. There is more then one way of going about it, but the first step is realizing something needs to happen.
I kinda agree with you about the "jump changes" issue.
What do you think about moon value/system yield is affected by system utilization?
There are military, industrial etc index, and this could in turn affect the yield/value of the assets in the system. Be it moongoo or whatnot. This would force utilization of the space if you want to make major isk (beyond market).
You could counter with "this will just increase the influx of bots" but thats another discussion. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
260
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:24:00 -
[157] - Quote
More utilization in Nullsec would be a good thing overall, but there isn't much incentive to "keep it" in nullsec. There needs to be greater industry in nullsec overall.
Force projection is sort of a crutch. People will always find a way to throw as many people into a system if they feel they have to. |
Wesley Otsdarva
Asuratech Industrial Corp Brothers Of The Dark Sun
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:32:00 -
[158] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
Do It. It's my belief that capitals can move FAR too quickly across the map. When my dominix takes a whole hell of a lot longer just to jump a few systems. It's part of what made the big blue doughnut what it is today. The big boys and their toys can drop on grid the second someone tries to throw eggs at their sov. From anywhere in New Eden.
Just make Null have the capabilities to be a little more industrial so things don't require a JF for supplies and we're golden. As I want to be able to live out in null, and not have to go to high sec everytime I want some odds and ends. |
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:48:00 -
[159] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:More utilization in Nullsec would be a good thing overall, but there isn't much incentive to "keep it" in nullsec. There needs to be greater industry in nullsec overall.
Force projection is sort of a crutch. People will always find a way to throw as many people into a system if they feel they have to.
People might find a way to get into system, but it will be much more effort and timeconsuming. And conflicts that you usually would meddle with today would require too much effort to bother with if changes in mobility was implimented.
Like many people these days, Ive been in groups zipping back and forth between x amounts of regions within 10-20 minutes, killing stuff with impunity at a moments notice. Im not gonna deny its good fun being in the group dealing the pain, but such extreme level of mobility seems a bit over the top, creating some apathy to it. No matter where you turn, there is a cyno with xyz amount of guys at the other end ready to kill you.
Could always hope for more local wars with reduction in mobility. |
Bland Inquisitor
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:56:00 -
[160] - Quote
We are not talking about a new problem here, we are talking about THE problem. One that could of easily been fixed if CCP would invest its energies towards a solution instead of wasting time on other ventures such as Dust and World of Darkness.
I see two options open to CCP that would be acceptable to the player base;
1. A complete re-make write of the game, they have most of the time consuming factors taken care of so its not like they would be going back to the drawing board. They have the content, textures, models, infrastructure and manpower to be able to do so, why create an entirely new game such as Dust or WOD when your flagship title (the one that provides you all your income) is in dire need of an overhaul?
2. An entire game mechanic overhaul to change the overall objectives within 0.0.
The simplest way to do so would be to implement a hard restriction on stressing the server out. I would use a % base damage tick on all hulls in space based on the level of TIDI in system. It stands to reason that if the amount of ships in space can slow down time they can also cause an electrical storm that causes damage. So at 50% tidi you start doing 10% Total EHP per minute in system which isn't effected by resistances. If you get to the stage where its 1% TIDI your going to be doing 90% total EHP. In essence your going to destroy everything in that system within 2 minutes.
A soft restriction would be implemented by rewards similar to inclusions. Think of it like if there are more than 100 ships firing missiles at an IHUB the missiles start to collide and you actually start to lose overall DPS.
Finally I would like to see each player slot in a corporation mean something, Make it so that corporations have to be selective of their pilots. Scale that up also so alliances have to be selective of their member corps. Its always baffled me that there is no limitations on scale within eve, things like running costs, food and water, transport and other limiting factors of real conflicts are not present in this game which inevitably leads to the N+1 issue.
End of the day if EvE conflicts are won by N+1 and the only limiting factor is amount of players a node can sustain you will ALWAYS have this problem
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9890
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 14:56:00 -
[161] - Quote
I could live with losing our JB networks, the titan bridges and slapping 2 hour cooldowns for capital jump drives. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:11:00 -
[162] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor;
Damage % based on tidi will still have the same end result.. Whoever comes to the party first/already loaded on grid will be able to apply dps, while whoever comes in last will die like yesterday. People taking trips to the pub for a few beers while ON GRID in HED and still alive without damage recived a few hours later is hardly good mechanics or PR for the game. But speeding up the dying for newcomers to the field (hasnt loaded grid/unable to control their ships) isnt much on an improvement beyond reducing the waste of time. They are in effect given even less time to load grid (if I read your post correctly) |
Mr Blah Blahson
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:38:00 -
[163] - Quote
And you sov folk make fun of carebears for profiteering up in hi-sec.
At least when I mine or play the market, it doesn't take me 30 minutes to complete 1 command. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:42:00 -
[164] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote: That being said, it seems like CCP has bugged the code worse than ever, this fight reminded me of Y-2, where PL Titans jumped in late and died where they stood, never loaded. That was over 3 years ago?
I foolishly jumped in late and spent 3 hours in the warp tunnel before I saw local chat, grid never loaded. I had to log three times and reboot my computer before I finally got in, 5.5 hours after I jumped. My Nyx was on grid for over two hours before i was actually able to pilot it....
CCP needs to shelf the fluff and garbage and do some serious work on the code before this simply gets to be too much for some people...
I guess my tentative plan to send an alt to Null to see what it's all about will have to be shelved. No way I am going to ever be a part of that. Sucks too. I think it would be cool zipping around a big fleet fight in a frigate, like a scene out of Star Wars. 10 year old code, some of which apparently CCP doesn't even understand. This game is suffering from old-code-syndrome. I would think that a 2 year plan to release Eve 2 would be the smartest thing they could possibly do right now. Something multi-threaded and able to handle 4k ships on grid. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1475
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:45:00 -
[165] - Quote
There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.
So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.
I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.
Take this little game below:
You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and other nodes per turn.
The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.
The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.
to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.
|
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:48:00 -
[166] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.
So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.
I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.
Take this little game below:
You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and other nodes per turn.
The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.
The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.
to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.
Well, intresting consept, but wont futher escalate the need for blocs? Need even more numbers to compete in the sov game. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1475
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:50:00 -
[167] - Quote
Niding wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.
So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.
I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.
Take this little game below:
You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and other nodes per turn.
The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.
The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.
to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.
Well, intresting consept, but wont futher escalate the need for blocs? Need even more numbers to compete in the sov game. Oh I'm not saying its a solution for EVE, its just a mini game where blobbing can't be used to win but rather the requirement to spread out is mandatory. |
Victor Andall
Complexes and Abaddons
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:50:00 -
[168] - Quote
Blah blah CCP should stop investing in Dust, CCP should stop investing in World of Darkness they should invest more time, money, effort in EVE.
And then I take a look at 70% of the forum threads in General Discussion and wonder why they invest as much as they already do here.
You know why you get ESS, EVE playerbase? Because that's all you deserve. I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?
http://andallcombat.wordpress.com/current-tournament/ |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:57:00 -
[169] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
DO IT!! There are people in highsec like me who would be willing to spend some time in Null *if* we thought it would be fun. Tidi/Blobs are not fun. Talk about free advertising? What woul dbe cooler video to see popping up on YouTube: 1 frame per 5 minutes or black screen, or 200 hundred ships flying and dodging, blowing up, and warping in and out? The huge huge Alliances are bad for the game. Too static, too limiting on freedom, and they monopolize resources in Null for the benefit of Alliance leadership (or so I've been told repeatedly). |
Gal Mart
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 15:58:00 -
[170] - Quote
Maybe CCP can introduce a deployable that reduces tidi when onlined... |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2024
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:00:00 -
[171] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.....
and lots more....
Malcanis, you and I are seem to be finding more common ground these days. But I also think you are missing the point here, or rather, not asking the right question. While I completely agree that supercaps proliferation has reached a ludicrous level (would love to compare supercaps in the game compared to, say 3 years ago), I think the question to the cartels is:
"Would you still have the will and capabilities to bring 4000 ships to a fight, if supercap power projection was nerfed, and nerfed hard?"
If supercap power projection capabilities were nerfed hugely, would blob-sec be complaining about systems locking up not with 2000 subcaps and 2000 supercaps, but with 3600 subcaps, and 400 supercaps? I think that is the more important question.
Though the enormous wealth of the individual null sec player is insane (Read PL's Elsie Randoplh stating that the loss of 350 cfc/Russian Dreads is not a big deal), the real factor I see is the size of the coaltions, and the plethora of non-combat agreements in null sec. (I find it ironic that the goons announce a non-combat agreement with PL across so many regions, in the middle of yesterday's dust-up).
When BoB was the biggest fish in the pond, what percentage of the player base, or more precisely, the null sec base, did they represent? When NC was at the top, what percentage did they represent?
We now have a situation where are only a few players in the sov arena now, and the only way you survive is being part of one of these super-coaltions. Then we have the "content-generating, conflict-driving" agreements to protect everyone's PvE income. Precisely how many "home" systems will CFC or PL ever lose now, or even have to actually defend, if the BOTLRD agreement is maintained?
The way I see it, throughout the history of the game, the participation percentage for a massive fight is pretty much the same. People have real lives, and stuff happens, especially on the weekend. But when you have such large bases to draw from given the size of these blue blanket groups, naturally they can field insane fleet sizes.
Consider this: cfc/ russians are about 50,000 members, according to http://raynor.cl/coalition.php. If they fielded 2700 pilots yesterday (according to the numbers I saw posted), that is a participation rate of 5.4%. Yes, those membership numbers include a huge amount of supercap alts, and non-combat chars. But bottom line, the actual participation rate was small.
Now, a couple years ago, a coalition of 10,000 were considered huge, and given the same participation rate, no group could even field 2,000 or 3,000 pilots. (2,000 pilots on one side was possible with a massive CTA to save your core systems, not a place like HED).
CCP has to have a long and hard look at not just supercap proliferation and power projection, but at the game mechanics of sov-space that encourage, nay, demand the meta-game mechanics we see now.
Of course, simply removing every goon ship from its hangars, zero'ing out the ISK balance of any account that ever had goon employment of any char, and wiping out every sov unit in every goon system would also go a long way to fixing the problem, but I kind of think CCP won't go with such an reasonable suggestion.
If CCP wants to encourage a more vibrant null sec and Eve, and by vibrant I mean MORE fighting, they have to find a way to limit the sizes of the blue blanket groups, so there are more independent groups. More groups = more friction.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13580
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:04:00 -
[172] - Quote
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday. Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead.
That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support.
If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed.
But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Kaminokage
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:08:00 -
[173] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
Dear Malcanis,
YouGÇÖre advertising EVE as a GÇ£ONE UNIVERSEGÇ¥ game. As a game with MASSIVE fleet battles. Asking for money for the service you cannot provide called: LYING. In general your hardware or software issues are not of our concern. If you canGÇÖt do something GÇô donGÇÖt tell that you can and then sell it.
We are the ONE (0.0. alliances) who CREATE huge, massive events in your sandbox. WeGÇÖre the best advertisement you can possibly get. Listen to us, invest in us GÇô and you can get MUCH more in return.
IGÇÖve been playing for many years and saw many wars, so I do know how the things work in EVE, but HED-GP battle was just too much. ~30% of my friends already canceled subscription after this battle. And believe me GÇô itGÇÖs just the beginning.
If you wonGÇÖt take anything from todayGÇÖs fight, if you wonGÇÖt start listening to your customers GÇô you might get a second GÇ£Monocles/ micro transactionsGÇ¥ situation. We love this game, but if nothing will be done, if our issues wonGÇÖt be addressed GÇô it might be time for us to leaveGǪ
Best regards, kaminokage |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13581
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:10:00 -
[174] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:There is no real need for getting rid of jump drives or bridges. The need is to get a % of the opposing forces out of the main system and into other systems to spread the load. The TIDI was not terrible yesterday at 1.5k. I was easily able to jump in in an inty, hit the cloak, mwd and evade the ceptors on the gate.
So what you want is the other 1.5k somewhere else, doing something that will assist the friendlies in the main system or damage the enemies.
I think you need to look at things at a very basic level and work up, trying to implement a solution into the EVE system is not going to work.
Take this little game below:
You have two bases, red and blue, they each have 100 health. You have 10 separate nodes from each base that leads to a supply depot. The supply depot cannot be damaged until the base is destroyed. The base can be attacked and destroyed but each node provides 10 health to the base and and adjacant node per turn.
The nodes can be destroyed but no node can be destroyed if any other node is over 5% health. A node can only take 12 damage per turn.
The only way you can win this game is if you split your forces up and attack all nodes at the same time. Any attempt to blob and blap them will fail. The winner will be the person that can kill the forces defending the node killing ships and defend their own node kill ships.
to win you must have 11 concurrent battles occurring.
(1) Not all fights are about sov. Eg: CSAAs, money moons.
(2) No one has yet managed to come up with an actual system that can't be gamed
(3) It does no good to take, say 2 obectives and fail two if what happens is that you lose 1/2 of your forces every time you fight, and the enemy loses a trivial amount in comparison because they outnumbered you 2:1 in the two fights they took. Eventually your pilots are going to get pretty unhappy with those odds and experiences, and your SRP is going to go bankrupt pretty fast.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2025
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:11:00 -
[175] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday. Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead. That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support. If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed. But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be.
How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights? I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.
But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4755
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:12:00 -
[176] - Quote
Nice to see you guys are finally realizing that power projection is a problem. . |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13581
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:13:00 -
[177] - Quote
Kaminokage wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday. Dear Malcanis, YouGÇÖre advertising EVE as a GÇ£ONE UNIVERSEGÇ¥ game. As a game with MASSIVE fleet battles. Asking for money for the service you cannot provide called: LYING. In general your hardware or software issues are not of our concern. If you canGÇÖt do something GÇô donGÇÖt tell that you can and then sell it. We are the ONE (0.0. alliances) who CREATE huge, massive events in your sandbox. WeGÇÖre the best advertisement you can possibly get. Listen to us, invest in us GÇô and you can get MUCH more in return. IGÇÖve been playing for many years and saw many wars, so I do know how the things work in EVE, but HED-GP battle was just too much. ~30% of my friends already canceled subscription after this battle. And believe me GÇô itGÇÖs just the beginning. If you wonGÇÖt take anything from todayGÇÖs fight, if you wonGÇÖt start listening to your customers GÇô you might get a second GÇ£Monocles/ micro transactionsGÇ¥ situation. We love this game, but if nothing will be done, if our issues wonGÇÖt be addressed GÇô it might be time for us to leaveGǪ Best regards, kaminokage
Dear kaminokage,
You seem to be under the impression that I'm a part of CCP. I'm not. You're not my customer. I don't take your money.
I agree that HED- was an unacceptable experience for paying customers, and I'm proposing a solution. Just yelling FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT at CCP won't fix anything. If they could push a button to fix lag, they would have done so.
If we don't like the way things work, we have to propose changes.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1476
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:13:00 -
[178] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday. Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead. That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support. If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed. But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be. Remember way back when EVE was young, there were less blocs, not only because of less subs, but because there was less reason to join them.
Blocs became more necessary because CCP added a crap load of inter-regional jumps making previously disconnected areas of space that were 100 jumps away 1 jump away. The closer your enemy is the more reason to be diplomatic. |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2928
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:15:00 -
[179] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported.
Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings?
Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges!
Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2025
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:16:00 -
[180] - Quote
Kaminokage wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday. Dear Malcanis, YouGÇÖre advertising EVE as a GÇ£ONE UNIVERSEGÇ¥ game. As a game with MASSIVE fleet battles. Asking for money for the service you cannot provide called: LYING. In general your hardware or software issues are not of our concern. If you canGÇÖt do something GÇô donGÇÖt tell that you can and then sell it. We are the ONE (0.0. alliances) who CREATE huge, massive events in your sandbox. WeGÇÖre the best advertisement you can possibly get. Listen to us, invest in us GÇô and you can get MUCH more in return. IGÇÖve been playing for many years and saw many wars, so I do know how the things work in EVE, but HED-GP battle was just too much. ~30% of my friends already canceled subscription after this battle. And believe me GÇô itGÇÖs just the beginning. If you wonGÇÖt take anything from todayGÇÖs fight, if you wonGÇÖt start listening to your customers GÇô you might get a second GÇ£Monocles/ micro transactionsGÇ¥ situation. We love this game, but if nothing will be done, if our issues wonGÇÖt be addressed GÇô it might be time for us to leaveGǪ Best regards, kaminokage
And if you leave, the problem eases, until newer players backfill your spot, and the next cycle starts up. But yeah, I really wonder if mittens has not threatened CCP with, "you mess with our operations, I will get 10,000 null sec accounts to unsub, and not before we grief high sec so bad you lose another 20,000 high sec accounts". Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
|
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:17:00 -
[181] - Quote
I think breaking up the huge Alliances would be a great start, along with nerfing jump drives significantly. Doesn't some of the Alliance territory actually exceed that of the existing NPC empires? Getting rid of the ability to drop a structure and mostly forget about it in order to 'claim' the system would be great too.
What if the size of Null were to grow by a factor of X? By that I mean CCP opens up new stargates leading to an additional 100,000 new star systems? Multiple entry points from all over highsec and WH, allowing smaller corps and Alliances to get in on the fun. |
Kaminokage
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:17:00 -
[182] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kaminokage wrote:[quote=Malcanis]The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like t Best regards, kaminokage Dear kaminokage, You seem to be under the impression that I'm a part of CCP. I'm not. You're not my customer. I don't take your money. I agree that HED- was an unacceptable experience for paying customers, and I'm proposing a solution. Just yelling FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT at CCP won't fix anything. If they could push a button to fix lag, they would have done so. If we don't like the way things work, we have to propose changes.
Ops, my bad...but I hope CCP got the point :D |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13582
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:17:00 -
[183] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Nice to see you guys are finally realizing that power projection is a problem.
Hey I predicted this exact outcome 3 years ago, before the non-DOT NC was destroyed.
Not that it was exactly difficult
Malcanis said in 2011 wrote: Powerblocs are an inevitable ermergent effect for the same reasons in EVE as in RL. If you want smaller powerblocs (and that's all that's being asked for really), you need more fragmented space. (The fragmentation effect is also what's behind the current furore about jump bridges, but removing JBs wont stop powerblocs, not really. They'll just impose additional overhead to deploying those 4-figure fleets, but they wont stop them being used when it really counts)
https://www.koogootsumen.com/showthread.php?37310-Die-Another-Day-NC-hegemony-a-problem
(Don't replace the oo's with u's and follow that link, your PC will instantly be hacked by hacking hackers)
1 Kings 12:11
|
Chirjo Durruti
AEGIS Innovations
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:20:00 -
[184] - Quote
Maybe a stupid idea, but how about this:
- hardcap pilots in system to a level where TiDi is still sufferable. - hardcap pilots that are not "officially blue" to corp holding sovereignty to 50% of total pilot cap (stargates belong to sov holder, right? wouldn't you facecheck incoming pilots?). "officially blue" status change is delayed 24h after change request. - hardcap on non-blue pilots can be removed by onlining facecheck hacking units on sending stargates. sov holder of receiving stargate system will be notified about hacking attempt. HOWTO: No More Tears (solo) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdA4ciUrH-k If you can get me a better crew than THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPrtQ9AdoM0 convo me. |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
329
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:20:00 -
[185] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Malcanis wrote:Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday. Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead. That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support. If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed. But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be. How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights? I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about. But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.
The buff to null industry would not be to get more supers available; it's just to make logistics in null possible without jump bridges i.e. Production chains can exist entirely in null, meaning way less trips to high sec. If you nerf jumping ( not a bad idea) to prevent power projection on the scale we're seeing, you also heavily nerf day-to-day logistics, and need to compensate.
I am not an alt of Chribba. |
Pandora Barzane
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:21:00 -
[186] - Quote
Beautiful Frelcia wrote:March rabbit wrote:Beautiful Frelcia wrote:CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.
2 less goons in the game? PERFECT you dont get It. Its not about politics', meta gaming etc. Its about service we are paying for every month.
goons paying for their subs?
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1144
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:21:00 -
[187] - Quote
Bland Inquisitor wrote:We are not talking about a new problem here, we are talking about THE problem. One that could of easily been fixed if CCP would invest its energies towards a solution instead of wasting time on other ventures such as Dust and World of Darkness.
I see two options open to CCP that would be acceptable to the player base;
1. A complete re-make write of the game, they have most of the time consuming factors taken care of so its not like they would be going back to the drawing board. They have the content, textures, models, infrastructure and manpower to be able to do so, why create an entirely new game such as Dust or WOD when your flagship title (the one that provides you all your income) is in dire need of an overhaul?
2. An entire game mechanic overhaul to change the overall objectives within 0.0.
The simplest way to do so would be to implement a hard restriction on stressing the server out. I would use a % base damage tick on all hulls in space based on the level of TIDI in system. It stands to reason that if the amount of ships in space can slow down time they can also cause an electrical storm that causes damage. So at 50% tidi you start doing 10% Total EHP per minute in system which isn't effected by resistances. If you get to the stage where its 1% TIDI your going to be doing 90% total EHP. In essence your going to destroy everything in that system within 2 minutes.
A soft restriction would be implemented by rewards similar to incursions. Think of it like if there are more than 100 ships firing missiles at an IHUB the missiles start to collide and you actually start to lose overall DPS.
Finally I would like to see each player slot in a corporation mean something, Make it so that corporations have to be selective of their pilots. Scale that up also so alliances have to be selective of their member corps. Its always baffled me that there is no limitations on scale within eve, things like running costs, food and water, transport and other limiting factors of real conflicts are not present in this game which inevitably leads to the N+1 issue.
End of the day if EvE conflicts are won by N+1 and the only limiting factor is amount of players a node can sustain you will ALWAYS have this problem
sicen when whatyou describe can be considered EASILY solved?
Pff the ammount of fail comments by peoepl that never developed a software on this scale and had to deal with market pressure is amazing.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1478
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:23:00 -
[188] - Quote
Chirjo Durruti wrote:Maybe a stupid idea, but how about this:
- hardcap pilots in system to a level where TiDi is still sufferable. - hardcap pilots that are not "officially blue" to corp holding sovereignty to 50% of total pilot cap (stargates belong to sov holder, right? wouldn't you facecheck incoming pilots?). "officially blue" status change is delayed 24h after change request. - hardcap on non-blue pilots can be removed by onlining facecheck hacking units on sending stargates. sov holder of receiving stargate system will be notified about hacking attempt. You'd be suprised at the levels of disgraceful conduct people will go to to win :) like neut alts and neut fleets |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:26:00 -
[189] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: But yeah, I really wonder if mittens has not threatened CCP with, "you mess with our operations, I will get 10,000 null sec accounts to unsub, and not before we grief high sec so bad you lose another 20,000 high sec accounts".
Is this actually within the realm of reason? Or just grumpy over-reaction (no offense, please). If it's true, then wow, they need to perma-ban this dude. I bet the sub losses would be insignificant in the long run. This is the only game of it's type out there. People won't just walk away. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1479
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:29:00 -
[190] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: But yeah, I really wonder if mittens has not threatened CCP with, "you mess with our operations, I will get 10,000 null sec accounts to unsub, and not before we grief high sec so bad you lose another 20,000 high sec accounts".
Is this actually within the realm of reason? Or just grumpy over-reaction (no offense, please). If it's true, then wow, they need to perma-ban this dude. I bet the sub losses would be insignificant in the long run. This is the only game of it's type out there. People won't just walk away. conspiracy theories... you don't threaten vikings and live |
|
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:31:00 -
[191] - Quote
Kagura Nikon;
Not going to argue against "fail comments" vs complexity and cost in development
But Malcanis is asking for suggestions and brainstorming with regards to solutions on how to make EVE a better gaming expirience. Hopefully a few of the ideas can atleast inspire CCP DEVs and spark a tweak in mechanics to improve on the current situation.
Non game related; when you are in a meeting developing bussniss procedures, you might look at collegues work and find it quite useless as it is. BUT their inital work might give you ideas on your own, and the procedure is futher developed.
Brainstorming CAN be helpful |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1480
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:39:00 -
[192] - Quote
Oh something else to consider. Yesterday before my computer crashed CFC dreads were dying before they were even loading into system afaik. At least they were just sitting there doing nothing and I read that in local.
After my computer crashed and I rebooted I logged into HED again, got a black screen for 10 minutes. Closed the client and loaded an alt. About 10 minutes after that my alts connection was usurped by Infinity lol. So she finally loaded into system when I was already logged onto another character on my account.
That sort of thing could be looked into too and make people a bit less angry. |
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:44:00 -
[193] - Quote
All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous. Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure. CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund. If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list. If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way. In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver. Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field. |
RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet Intrepid Crossing
200
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:48:00 -
[194] - Quote
I'm at a bit of a loss what caused this fight? Was it planned? (not trolling, really don't know) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13582
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:48:00 -
[195] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights? I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.
But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.
It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother.
The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers (again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1480
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:49:00 -
[196] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous. Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure. CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund. If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list. If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way. In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver. Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field. CCP never promised perfect 4000 man fleet fights without lag. They never even envisaged 4000 man fights. I remember them celebrating 50 vs 50 lol. CCP can't fix the player mentality. Everyone KNEW 100% you would be seeing 10% tidi in that fight. They undocked and went anyway. |
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:55:00 -
[197] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights? I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.
But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.
It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother. The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers ( again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec.
Well, the gains of activity is in the indexes. As I said earlier, maybe tie the indexes into the moon value for added incentive to actually live and utilize 0.0.
As for it being a pain to live in 0.0 as it is;
high sec traders have small margins, but very high volume. 0.0 traders have bigger margins, but lower volume.
If the system in 0.0 is tweaked so there is more incentive to actually live there, the traders will follow. They do the hauling and seeding of whats needed. More "stuff" on the market will attract more people to that part of the region. Generating more income/volume etc. |
Miasmos
Aliastra Gallente Federation
79
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:56:00 -
[198] - Quote
One should take into consideration the psychological effect of nerfing capital jumps. "Capitals are best used at a small perimeter" -> "Capitals are best used for defense".
Every bloc would stockpile their defensive capitals forever in their home turf, never putting any of them on campaigns except for when a minor entity doesn't pay the rent. 2015 would be the year of ratting supers. I don't know whether this would actually change anything or not, I guess that's the reality anyway. Possibly rental empire spans would be reduced, allowing for more coalitions lebensraum in the best case scenario. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:57:00 -
[199] - Quote
@Malcanis: If you can j-clone, you can fight a two front battle. You just need ships in both locations. While this won't work for supercaps, it will work for capitals and subcaps.
Next, the real solution is going to be much different than you expect. Putting caps on the number of pilots in system (as others have suspected) keeps the server alive ticking, but is very gameable. At the end of the day though, this hits the real "solution". The real solution is to reduce the number of pilots in a system to a manageable amount. But the question is, how do you accomplish this in a reasonable manner?
You do it through attrition. In all honesty, what is the rate at which pilots "leave" a system once they enter it? Frankly, it isn't high enough, and that's what needs to change!
Now, there are several dilemmas at work here:
1.) Logistics: Logistics are amazing in many regards, but they essentially reduce and/or eliminate the attrition of ships in a fight. You need attrition to reduce (ideally quickly) the number of ships & pilots on field.
2.) Grid loading: One of the biggest problems in attacking a force already on field, is your ships need to load field before they can even react to the environment they find themselves in. There needs to be extended invulnerability for ships loading grid.
3.) Massive Player Influx: This may happen by gate or by bridging, but sov is one of the few areas where a thousand players may suddenly arrive in system. There probably needs to be a limit as to how many players can enter system at once, especially since this is one of the more demanding loads on the server (to my limited understanding). |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1144
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 16:59:00 -
[200] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:I think breaking up the huge Alliances would be a great start, along with nerfing jump drives significantly. Doesn't some of the Alliance territory actually exceed that of the existing NPC empires? Getting rid of the ability to drop a structure and mostly forget about it in order to 'claim' the system would be great too.
What if the size of Null were to grow by a factor of X? By that I mean CCP opens up new stargates leading to an additional 100,000 new star systems? Multiple entry points from all over highsec and WH, allowing smaller corps and Alliances to get in on the fun.
and how in hell doe shta thelp? They simply divide the SAME coalition in more alliances.
The means to make it happen is to make large groups inneficient. Only way that happens is if therte are mechanics toa create internal distrust,
MEchanic s that make you having many members just open you up to too many traitors possibilities. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2026
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:00:00 -
[201] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights? I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.
But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.
It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother. The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers ( again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec.
Well, you and I differ there.
One can certainly limit the power projection capabilities of supercaps without altering the capabilities of jump freighters. Further, I would make this suggestion: If logistics is so bad (and I lived in Pure Blind, and have more than a passing knowledge of what was required), then could a number of these logistics issues be resolved by simply buffing the range and cargo space of jump freighters?
Null sec industry buffs, null sec logistics, and power projection I see as issues that can be addressed with separate tweaks, though perhaps at the same time.
I would suggest if null sec logistics were improved with better JF's, then the need to buff null industry again (they just got a huge slot buff) is not nearly as important. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:00:00 -
[202] - Quote
Katrina Oniseki wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on. 24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported. Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings? Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges!
Consumables for gate jumps: the idea isn't to make it expensive, but to make it logistically difficult. To pick an example, suppose jumping a battleship hull through a gate consumed, say, a Cap 150 charge. That would mean that the ship would have to carry 60m^3 of cap charges in order to travel 10 jumps. (and another 60m^3 in order to return!) Well that would be pretty bearable, so local scope engagements wouldn't be much affected. But to travel 30 or 40 jumps jumps (ie to cross a region or two), then you're looking at 180 or 240m^3 each way, and the cargo requirements become rather more significant.
Sure, fleets could bring haulers with more charges, but haulers are quite hard to protect, and losing your fuel truck could strand your fleet.
Jump & Titan Bridges. Yeah There are 4-digit numbers of titans in the game. even a cooldown isn't going to slow them down much.
Maybe limit alliances to 1-2 jump bridges total, or make them consume much more fuel (such that, again, the logistics requirement becomes significant).
The prices details don't matter all that much tbh. What matters is that moving more then 10-12 jumps away from your home will need to become something that one no longer does casually.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:02:00 -
[203] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Malcanis wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights? I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.
But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.
It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother. The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers ( again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec. Well, you and I differ there. One can certainly limit the power projection capabilities of supercaps without altering the capabilities of jump freighters. Further, I would make this suggestion: If logistics is so bad (and I lived in Pure Blind, and have more than a passing knowledge of what was required), then could a number of these logistics issues be resolved by simply buffing the range and cargo space of jump freighters? Null sec industry buffs, null sec logistics, and power projection I see as issues that can be addressed with separate tweaks, though perhaps at the same time. I would suggest if null sec logistics were improved with better JF's, then the need to buff null industry again (they just got a huge slot buff) is not nearly as important.
There's also the issue of forcing players into a game area they don't want to go to. Why shouldn't nullsec have the ability to largely support itself? I don't see what good purpose this serves in making the game experience of people who live in 0.0 any better.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:04:00 -
[204] - Quote
Chirjo Durruti wrote:Maybe a stupid idea, but how about this:
- hardcap pilots in system to a level where TiDi is still sufferable. - hardcap pilots that are not "officially blue" to corp holding sovereignty to 50% of total pilot cap (stargates belong to sov holder, right? wouldn't you facecheck incoming pilots?). "officially blue" status change is delayed 24h after change request. - hardcap on non-blue pilots can be removed by onlining facecheck hacking units on sending stargates. sov holder of receiving stargate system will be notified about hacking attempt.
Then the first side that packs 500 guys into a system automatically wins.
"Wars" inevitably end up with a race to log into a system after DT, and then no fights occur.
No thanks.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:06:00 -
[205] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Stasis Leak wrote:All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous. Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure. CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund. If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list. If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way. In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver. Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field. CCP never promised perfect 4000 man fleet fights without lag. They never even envisaged 4000 man fights. I remember them celebrating 50 vs 50 lol. CCP can't fix the player mentality. Everyone KNEW 100% you would be seeing 10% tidi in that fight. They undocked and went anyway. This is not an answer. It's an excuse. And a bad one at that. The only way to counter the current drone assist exploit is to overpower it. If it is not possible to get enough firepower into the system because "They never even envisaged 4000 man fights" then drone assist must be dealt with. The discussion about whether or not it is broken is no longer an academic exercise. It's a fact. I do not accept an excuse from any provider that they never envisioned that I would use their product exactly as it was intended (not to mention marketed) to be. If your internet provider suddenly went down and excused himself by saying "I had no idea you would be viewing so many web pages", would you continue to pay for the service? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4757
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:10:00 -
[206] - Quote
Making players have consumables to take a gate is not the power projection nerf you are looking for. . |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2026
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:11:00 -
[207] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: There's also the issue of forcing players into a game area they don't want to go to. Why shouldn't nullsec have the ability to largely support itself? I don't see what good purpose this serves in making the game experience of people who live in 0.0 any better.
Hold on there....we are diverging from the original thrust of the thread. But the question I have is this: If Null is so bad right now, why do we have SO MANY people jumping into it? From what I read, the goon's rental campaign has been a booming success. Those people moved in based on current conditions, not future conditions.
I grant you that if you take away a big carrot, supercap power projection , from null sec, you have to give them something back in return. But when you start talking about null sec being able to operate independent of high sec, that is way too much being given back.
Eve then truly becomes two worlds, one that has everything, including all the elements that the poor one needs, like T2 materials, while the poor one has nothing to offer the rich one, except targets to grief, and taxes to gather (POCO's). Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9891
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:12:00 -
[208] - Quote
RAIN Arthie wrote:I'm at a bit of a loss what caused this fight? Was it planned? (not trolling, really don't know)
CVA came in and blew up a cyno jammer, them being CVA nobody took much notice of them until N3/PL were dumping their capital blob into the system.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
38
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:12:00 -
[209] - Quote
Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics. Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful. Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont help.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9891
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:15:00 -
[210] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Making players have consumables to take a gate is not the power projection nerf you are looking for.
Indeed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:16:00 -
[211] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:ZynnLee Akkori wrote:I think breaking up the huge Alliances would be a great start, along with nerfing jump drives significantly. Doesn't some of the Alliance territory actually exceed that of the existing NPC empires? Getting rid of the ability to drop a structure and mostly forget about it in order to 'claim' the system would be great too.
What if the size of Null were to grow by a factor of X? By that I mean CCP opens up new stargates leading to an additional 100,000 new star systems? Multiple entry points from all over highsec and WH, allowing smaller corps and Alliances to get in on the fun. and how in hell doe shta thelp? They simply divide the SAME coalition in more alliances. The means to make it happen is to make large groups inneficient. Only way that happens is if therte are mechanics toa create internal distrust, MEchanic s that make you having many members just open you up to too many traitors possibilities. You subdivide null sec into pockets again. With pockets you expand until you meet another entity that blocks your expansion.
From memory the systems were originally like this:
Image
It was beneficial to have a NAP with the blue and yellow but the red was so far away, you has to travel to low or through high to get to their area. There were only a couple of long regional jumps. Now everything is connected to everything else so there is increased reason to NAP everyone because they're threats if not NAP given ease of access.
Edit: also apologize for the really lame pic its 4:23am and got insomnia again :) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4757
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:17:00 -
[212] - Quote
If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.
Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow. . |
TharOkha
0asis Group
775
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:30:00 -
[213] - Quote
Ive mentioned this in other thread.
problem with current sov mechanic is that everything is situated in one solar system. And that tends to escalate to 3800+ local fight.
Sov warfare needs to spread to whole constellation. If you want to destroy something in system X (like HUBs, TCU etc), you also need to destroy something in system Y and Z (some kind of "nodes" or "generators" linked directly to objects located in system X) and it needs to be destroyed simultaneously. This would spread all forces to several systems, not just to one.
Current sov warfare videos on YT looks like boring "blob AFK parties" (Someone already mentioned this..) . |
Michael Escoto
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Stasis Leak wrote:All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous. Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure. CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund. If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list. If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way. In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver. Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field. CCP never promised perfect 4000 man fleet fights without lag. They never even envisaged 4000 man fights. I remember them celebrating 50 vs 50 lol. CCP can't fix the player mentality. Everyone KNEW 100% you would be seeing 10% tidi in that fight. They undocked and went anyway. This is not an answer. It's an excuse. And a bad one at that. The only way to counter the current drone assist exploit is to overpower it. If it is not possible to get enough firepower into the system because "They never even envisaged 4000 man fights" then drone assist must be dealt with. The discussion about whether or not it is broken is no longer an academic exercise. It's a fact. I do not accept an excuse from any provider that they never envisioned that I would use their product exactly as it was intended (not to mention marketed) to be. If your internet provider suddenly went down and excused himself by saying "I had no idea you would be viewing so many web pages", would you continue to pay for the service?
Infinity gave a reasonable answer really, as there are limits on how computer hardware works. |
RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet Intrepid Crossing
200
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:32:00 -
[215] - Quote
Imagine if the fight took place in an asteroid belt with smartbombing battleships involved. The server would have sprouted legs, tour off it's wires, and walked out with breifcase in hand.
Now with the jokes aside, people exercise caution and humility when posting. Nothing is perfect, instead of ranting like children who dropped their ice cream cone, realize that smart constructive posting is what gets their attention. Post solutions not complaints. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:34:00 -
[216] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:Ive mentioned this in other thread.
problem with current sov mechanic is that everything is situated in one solar system. And that tends to escalate to 3800+ local fight.
Sov warfare needs to spread to whole constellation. If you want to destroy something in system X (like HUBs, TCU etc), you also need to destroy something in system Y and Z (some kind of "nodes" or "generators" linked directly to objects located in system X) and it needs to be destroyed simultaneously. This would spread all forces to several systems, not just to one.
Current sov warfare videos on YT looks like boring "blob AFK parties" (Someone already mentioned this..) There are examples of this sort of thing already in some games.
Anyone played Aces High? To capture an airfield you need to kill a town away from an airfield, you also have infrastructure such as HQ's that knock out radar, ammunition, ability to field fighters and there are npc convoys and trains that you can blow up to reduce resupplies.
Of course its no implemented very well and everyone just blobs the hell out of airfields but its a example of 'out of system' combat to achieve a main objective. |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2928
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:41:00 -
[217] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Katrina Oniseki wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on. 24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported. Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings? Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges! Consumables for gate jumps: the idea isn't to make it expensive, but to make it logistically difficult. To pick an example, suppose jumping a battleship hull through a gate consumed, say, a Cap 150 charge. That would mean that the ship would have to carry 60m^3 of cap charges in order to travel 10 jumps. (and another 60m^3 in order to return!) Well that would be pretty bearable, so local scope engagements wouldn't be much affected. But to travel 30 or 40 jumps jumps (ie to cross a region or two), then you're looking at 180 or 240m^3 each way, and the cargo requirements become rather more significant. Sure, fleets could bring haulers with more charges, but haulers are quite hard to protect, and losing your fuel truck could strand your fleet. Jump & Titan Bridges. Yeah There are 4-digit numbers of titans in the game. even a cooldown isn't going to slow them down much. Maybe limit alliances to 1-2 jump bridges total, or make them consume much more fuel (such that, again, the logistics requirement becomes significant). The prices details don't matter all that much tbh. What matters is that moving more then 10-12 jumps away from your home will need to become something that one no longer does casually.
The titan/jump bridge pilot isn't the one with the cooldown. The player that used the bridge (say, a dominix pilot), is the one that must wait 24 hours to bridge again. Players would only be able to bridge once every 24 hours, and would inherit a timer similar to the Jump Clone timer that can be seen through the character sheet.
This would keep bridging relevant, but not as overpowered as it is today, as one fleet could not bridge across the map in one sitting, but they could conceivably reach the next region over before needing to use stargates.
Would you support faction/player standings or security status having an effect on the amount of charges required to jump through a gate? It might give good reason to use more than the standard +/- 5 and 10s we see in current standings. You can graduate how badly you want your enemies to overpay for jumps in systems you own. Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:47:00 -
[218] - Quote
Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics. Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful. Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone?
I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice. However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them. To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook. There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters. Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up? I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it".
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9892
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:53:00 -
[219] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.
Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow.
I suppose you could put a timer on changing where your clone is stored.
Not a fan of the 24 hour cap jump drive limit. 2 hours seems a fair bit better. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet Intrepid Crossing
200
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:55:00 -
[220] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics. Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful. Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone? I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice. However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them. To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook. There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters. Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up? I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it". I like it. |
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:57:00 -
[221] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics. Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful. Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone? I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice. However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them. To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook. There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters. Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up? I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it". CCP are pretty straight up at acknowledging the lag issues. A very small amount of effort is required with a search engine prior to subscribing to EVE to find out just how bad the lag issues are in large scale engagements. CCP have never advertised huge lagless fleet fights afaik.
As for making it impossible to take damage you're assuming that the server has the capability to tell whether a ship has loaded grid on all the clients. Like the drowning guy that drowns his mate trying to use him for floatation, the servers in an obvious unstable state trying to share around all those calls in the one second it has... before the next second. |
Niding
Peg-legged Goats Nihilists Social Club
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:57:00 -
[222] - Quote
Stasis Leak;
I think the fact that people keep posting suggestions/changes means they dont "accept excuses", and want "something done to enhance the gaming expirience".
As for your IT background (I assume private sector). Yes I do understand the aspect of customer service and doing your best to deliver (working in private sector myself). CCP has improved performance since I started playing in 2006. Is it enough or have they gone about it the right way? Judging by HED yesterday (and other fights); clearly no.
Hence we are sitting in this thread throwing off "ideas". I do assume that Im not the only without IT/Coding background, so wether our suggestions are possible, realistic, cost efficient etc is up to CCP DEVs/CSM to decide. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:59:00 -
[223] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Making players have consumables to take a gate is not the power projection nerf you are looking for.
Whatever mechanism, then, because soul crushing lag from Bloc A packing 2000 subcaps into a system, requiring bloc B to respond by bring 2001 subcaps isn't any less soul crushing than the lag caused by capitals or supercapitals.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:00:00 -
[224] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.
Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow. I suppose you could put a timer on changing where your clone is stored. Not a fan of the 24 hour cap jump drive limit. 2 hours seems a fair bit better.
Then you can do 12 jumps a day, Which means that Tueday's Branch fleet can easily save a timer in Immensea on Thursday.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:02:00 -
[225] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Katrina Oniseki wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on. 24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported. Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings? Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges! Consumables for gate jumps: the idea isn't to make it expensive, but to make it logistically difficult. To pick an example, suppose jumping a battleship hull through a gate consumed, say, a Cap 150 charge. That would mean that the ship would have to carry 60m^3 of cap charges in order to travel 10 jumps. (and another 60m^3 in order to return!) Well that would be pretty bearable, so local scope engagements wouldn't be much affected. But to travel 30 or 40 jumps jumps (ie to cross a region or two), then you're looking at 180 or 240m^3 each way, and the cargo requirements become rather more significant. Sure, fleets could bring haulers with more charges, but haulers are quite hard to protect, and losing your fuel truck could strand your fleet. Jump & Titan Bridges. Yeah There are 4-digit numbers of titans in the game. even a cooldown isn't going to slow them down much. Maybe limit alliances to 1-2 jump bridges total, or make them consume much more fuel (such that, again, the logistics requirement becomes significant). The prices details don't matter all that much tbh. What matters is that moving more then 10-12 jumps away from your home will need to become something that one no longer does casually.
How many ****** pubbie threads before you stop thinking your half formed opinion and ideas are ever actually relevant or good? Is it less than ten? please be less than ten. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4757
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:03:00 -
[226] - Quote
Instead of the once per day deal for jump drives, it should be more functional in light years with a cap.
So everything that makes you go from one system to another without taking gates eats away at this pool of power projection. That includes jump drives, jump bridges, titan bridges, jump clones and even pod deaths. We already have these new skills in regards to having more clones and lower time to clone jump. So re-tasking them to enhance the power projection pool can be done without introducing new skills players have to train.
This would mean players would need to actually be strategic how they wanted to spend this pool. Could be all at once with jumping a carrier a time or two exhausting it or moving several different clones to a staging system so they can be more flexible on hardworking to give them an edge in flying a variety of ships. Also it would have more meaning to podding someone who is far away from their medical clone station. Because you know they will not be jumping a Slowcat carrier on your face 30 seconds later. Podding some brought a cheap damp Celestis would not mean they would be right back via titan bridge with yet another Celestis moments later.
The only remaining matter is figuring out a balanced cap on the power projection pool. . |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:06:00 -
[227] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Instead of the once per day deal for jump drives, it should be more functional in light years with a cap.
So everything that makes you go from one system to another without taking gates eats away at this pool of power projection. That includes jump drives, jump bridges, titan bridges, jump clones and even pod deaths. We already have these new skills in regards to having more clones and lower time to clone jump. So re-tasking them to enhance the power projection pool can be done without introducing new skills players have to train.
This would mean players would need to actually be strategic how they wanted to spend this pool. Could be all at once with jumping a carrier a time or two exhausting it or moving several different clones to a staging system so they can be more flexible on hardworking to give them an edge in flying a variety of ships. Also it would have more meaning to podding someone who is far away from their medical clone station. Because you know they will not be jumping a Slowcat carrier on your face 30 seconds later. Podding some brought a cheap damp Celestis would not mean they would be right back via titan bridge with yet another Celestis moments later.
The only remaining matter is figuring out a balanced cap on the power projection pool.
Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13584
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:07:00 -
[228] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
How many ****** pubbie threads before you stop thinking your half formed opinion and ideas are ever actually relevant or good? Is it less than ten? please be less than ten.
Oh it's a lot more than 10, Bob.
So very much more.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:07:00 -
[229] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
herein lies the problem nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
|
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:08:00 -
[230] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:As for making it impossible to take damage you're assuming that the server has the capability to tell whether a ship has loaded grid on all the clients. Like the drowning guy that drowns his mate trying to use him for floatation, the servers in an obvious unstable state trying to share around all those calls in the one second it has... before the next second. Yes. I would assume that a system that is capable of clocking all of those kills is also capable of determining whether or not they were actually in HED or Jita. Seems reasonable to me. Maybe spending the last 12 years as an executive, demanding things, has skewed my perception. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4758
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:12:00 -
[231] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:Malcanis wrote: Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
herein lies the problem nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
^^ #1 Fan of Malcanis . |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:15:00 -
[232] - Quote
I like you almost as much Marlona, I just wish you'd organize more useless community events |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2928
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:16:00 -
[233] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
WHAT ABOUT THE SHAREHOLDERS?! WHO'S HELPING THEM OUT, BOB?! Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13584
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:18:00 -
[234] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:Malcanis wrote: Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
herein lies the problem nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
I seem to have somehow upset you, whoever you are.
I can't tell you how bad your content-free crying makes me, because I like being truthful.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Sons Of Saints Circle-Of-Two
721
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:21:00 -
[235] - Quote
Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics. Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful. Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone?
Apparently universities have degrees now in computer game design. CCP could perhaps find a person who has one and then pay them some money in exchange for ideas. |
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:26:00 -
[236] - Quote
Niding wrote:Stasis Leak;
I think the fact that people keep posting suggestions/changes means they dont "accept excuses", and want "something done to enhance the gaming expirience".
As for your IT background (I assume private sector). Yes I do understand the aspect of customer service and doing your best to deliver (working in private sector myself). CCP has improved performance since I started playing in 2006. Is it enough or have they gone about it the right way? Judging by HED yesterday (and other fights); clearly no.
Hence we are sitting in this thread throwing off "ideas". I do assume that Im not the only without IT/Coding background, so wether our suggestions are possible, realistic, cost efficient etc is up to CCP DEVs/CSM to decide. Niding, I understand what you are saying. Clearly, I'm not charitable enough to give the company the huge amount of leeway that most people obviously do. I've never seen a provider do better because everyone patted them on the back and said "good try!". I have, however, seem many instances where someone, under the gun for screwing up, suddenly pulled a rabbit out of a hat and became the hero of the day. I don't think the c'est la vie attitude toward these failures do anything for the company. Rather than blaming the players for playing the game, how about taking a little bit of responsibility. I don't care about whether or not the fix is cost effective or convenient for the company. I'm a discriminating consumer, and I want what I pay for. |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1690
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:35:00 -
[237] - Quote
I wouldn't blame the numbers problem on force projection, I would blame it on the fact that here is usually only one important timer coming out at any given time.
If there were more timers that people had to show up to, suddenly power projection doesn't matter because now you have to choose what is most important to you (defending your stuff rather than helping out some random alliance because they are the enemy of your enemy), rather than showing up to everything because it's the only fight that matters that night. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4759
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:52:00 -
[238] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:I wouldn't blame the numbers problem on force projection, I would blame it on the fact that here is usually only one important timer coming out at any given time.
If there were more timers that people had to show up to, suddenly power projection doesn't matter because now you have to choose what is most important to you (defending your stuff rather than helping out some random alliance because they are the enemy of your enemy), rather than showing up to everything because it's the only fight that matters that night. It is a combination of several factors. Like you describe, the current sov system and another major one is power projection. Basically the only bottleneck for the player being at the fight is if they want to or not. What they bring and when they bring it means very little given how easy it is to do it.
There needs to be more strategic choices. Right now, why bring an interceptor when I can bring a capital ship to an I-hub fight? Why stay and guard the walls to my territory when I know I can be just as effective showing up at the last minute before any harm is done? Why bother keeping an eye on assets in space when the moment someone looks at one wrong, I get a nifty little message telling me so instantly? The only exception so far has been the mobile siphon and that has only come about recently.
Bottom line is there is little to no reasons to not blob and to not bring the biggest ship you can find. Solve that, and you fix a lot of our problems. Everyone piling into one system onto one grid should have real penalties while you are not home. . |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:53:00 -
[239] - Quote
interesangt wrote:conclusion.. remove caps from game, sad to say this, but there aint no other way.. Yeah that will solve blabbing instead of a mix fleet if caps and subs, it'll just be how every many subcaps stuck staring at each other in 10% tidi |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
313
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:55:00 -
[240] - Quote
Why not another bad sov idea.
Each TCU generates subspace bauble around Ihub and itself for each timer. ( not for station timers).
This subspace bauble can be accessed only by subcaps up to 50 people from attacking and defending force. ( we cloud use standing system here and for defending and attacking side only people having +10 could warp to this battle ).
This subspace bauble can be accessed only 10 minutes before reinforce timer - after 10 minutes it closes and players that are inside have to fight other side. ( no cloaks allowed)
Wining side can access acceleration gate that allows access to some structure. It have 2 options: - SBU signal scrambler - all sbu in the system cycle , so timer is won till they are online again , if you will be able to able rep structure. - Shutting down subspace bauble defending TCU or Ihub - only then you can cyno in capital fleet on the structure
This is bad idea - but it is far more better than the current nonsense.
So 50vs50 on separate node BEFORE current nonsence. TIDI IS NIGHTMARE - CCP SHOW US THE TIMERS Reactivation timers on : MJD and more. Please like & post in this idea to keep it visible. |
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:58:00 -
[241] - Quote
Agondray wrote:interesangt wrote:conclusion.. remove caps from game, sad to say this, but there aint no other way.. Yeah that will solve blabbing instead of a mix fleet if caps and subs, it'll just be how every many subcaps stuck staring at each other in 10% tidi Yeah its not Caps its Naps (aka coalitions).
Actually thinking about it, cool-downs would probably be a buff to coalitions who are best able to stock multiple fleets in multiple locations while smaller alliances would be stuck with the nerf. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
267
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:13:00 -
[242] - Quote
If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:20:00 -
[243] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item. This is very true.
Like I said earlier, there needs to be more strategy in using the big money items and even using mass numbers. Right now, none exist. There is no reason not to bring EVERYONE in the biggest ships possible. . |
Anna Outamo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:26:00 -
[244] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item.
the answer is obvious, like Malcanis has said just make every Bridge/Gate jump cost fuel that fuel being Aurum. One PLEX Worth of Aurum covers you for a full day of gate travel and 4 titan bridges or Jump Drive Operations, and you can spend additional Aurum to make your jump drive act as if it's a Cal V Jump Drive.
Obvious answer, simple to implement. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
531
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:28:00 -
[245] - Quote
CCP need to continue the ship rebalancing, but instead of new mobile structures (which may impact new POSs in some way that hasn't be unveiled yet) they need to fix A) Sov and B) POSs, and the game would be far more playable.
Mah Boobz wrote:I wonder, if CCP hadn't spent all that money on Dust and WOD, and instead, put it into the Eve servers (were the money was made) if we could actually have the fights CCP brag about?
CCP already had military grade hardware, the only thing to be done to improve it would be to rewrite the entire game's code, and that would likely take years if they completely forsake working on the game as it currently is, and there would still be bugs to be discover.
baltec1 wrote:Too many caps, too many caps on all sides.
Cap proliferation is a problem. But you're only mad about it because you don't have as many as N3, otherwise you'd be laughing your ass off at everyone complaining. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
271
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:29:00 -
[246] - Quote
Anna Outamo wrote:WarFireV wrote:If you remove caps, then in about a year people will come back and say remove faction battleships. There will always be the big money item. the answer is obvious, like Malcanis has said just make every Bridge/Gate jump cost fuel that fuel being Aurum. One PLEX Worth of Aurum covers you for a full day of gate travel and 4 titan bridges or Jump Drive Operations, and you can spend additional Aurum to make your jump drive act as if it's a Cal V Jump Drive. Obvious answer, simple to implement.
Should do this, then only PL will use jump drives and bridges |
Roxie Glitz
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:32:00 -
[247] - Quote
The coalitions are too huge in my opinion. Some betrayals would be cool, so maybe 10 larger blocks than just cfc/n3 |
Marsha Mallow
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:33:00 -
[248] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Bob FromMarketing wrote:Malcanis wrote: Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
herein lies the problem nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
I seem to have somehow upset you, whoever you are. I can't tell you how bad your content-free crying makes me, because I like being truthful. One of those rapacious ones you mentioned recently, reduced to impotent raging on gd due to a kugutsumen.com perma ban afaik. Might be one of the newer red posters tho, hard to tell. You can write Kugutsumen now btw I think, it's been unbanned for ages, just wasn't announced.
Re this discussion, whatever Garth is burbling on about in terms of player directed efforts to address this problem shouldn't be entirely dismissed. The angle here seems to be "force CCP to change power projection now as this is the root of the problem". Supercoalitions need to be smacked into the ground imo. Nerfing projection is part of that but doesn't get to the root of the problem. You can use HED to try to arm wrestle CCP into a review of sov mechanics and power projection, but if supercoalitions still dominate in 3 years what then? It's almost as though this situation has been engineered, since it was obvious months ago nullsec was aligning into the no-fun equivalent of RVB.
ps. Marlona for CSM? Some really interesting stuff so far, wtb more - |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13584
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:46:00 -
[249] - Quote
What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.
1 Kings 12:11
|
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
273
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:50:00 -
[250] - Quote
There are two main perspectives you can have about the root cause really.
HP and structures and timers mean people have to throw in as many people as they can into a sov timer.
or
People throw in as many people into a sov timer as they can because there is no reason not to. |
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:52:00 -
[251] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection. This is the root of the problem
This alleviates it to a large extent |
Molenius Morrowinger
M - Intergalactics Inq.
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:55:00 -
[252] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.
Maybe power projection should not be linear but rather logarithmic. Thus effort of bringing more people will not worth the benefit of doing it. And the optimal point must be around the numbers which server can deal with minus extra buffer. |
Xadus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:56:00 -
[253] - Quote
I was there was not fun.
CCP fix this game.
|
Marsha Mallow
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:56:00 -
[254] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection. Does the super-coalition exist purely because of power projection?
I'd argue it's at least equally player-driven or due to other game mechanics for several reasons.
Here's one:
- Alts. Any nerf to jump drives will result in people splitting characters up in various regions. Marlona's remarks go some way to addressing suicide podding/timer issues but that only relates to one character. Most hardcore nullbears have multiple characters and/or accounts. If projection is nerfed to the point alliances are fixed to one region, there's nothing to stop them rolling secondary corps/alliances via alts for surrounding areas and bypassing the fix.
- |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1691
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:58:00 -
[255] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Bottom line is there is little to no reasons to not blob and to not bring the biggest ship you can find. Solve that, and you fix a lot of our problems. Everyone piling into one system onto one grid should have real penalties while you are not home. I completely agree with you. I feel as though there are different approaches that we can take to get to the solution.
The one that Malcanis have suggested are more "macro" level changes, which are basically a complete overhaul of the way jump mechanics work in the game. The changes suggested would in a way solve the problem, but I feel as though this would just make the game more difficult for the average player, and would be just adding another pain point to people who are increasingly feeling as though nullsec is not for them. They might be seen as another "nerf nullsec" change, much like the 5% bounty nerf that comes with the ESS and be met with hostility.
I would like to see more "micro" level changes, where there are not additional limitations added based on ship type, but rather more pressure be put on fleets to be able to move around quickly or be split into more fleets effectively. Capital fleets, to a lesser extent battleship fleets, and very large tidi-inducing fleets are pretty slow movers and vulnerable to asymmetric warfare when they are combat-ready in system. The new warp speed changes have amplified this shortcoming. This would make individual fights more strategically interesting and make wars more about fighting and skill rather than logistical ability.
Both approaches would change the game for the better and solve most of the problems that we are having. The macro level approach is more dependent on logistics and in-game timers. I feel that the micro level approach would be more reliant on players and hence, better for the game. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13584
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 19:58:00 -
[256] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Agondray wrote:interesangt wrote:conclusion.. remove caps from game, sad to say this, but there aint no other way.. Yeah that will solve blabbing instead of a mix fleet if caps and subs, it'll just be how every many subcaps stuck staring at each other in 10% tidi Yeah its not Caps its Naps (aka coalitions). Actually thinking about it, cool-downs would probably be a buff to coalitions who are best able to stock multiple fleets in multiple locations while smaller alliances would be stuck with the nerf.
Smaller alliances can, by defintion, be in different places.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13584
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:00:00 -
[257] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Bottom line is there is little to no reasons to not blob and to not bring the biggest ship you can find. Solve that, and you fix a lot of our problems. Everyone piling into one system onto one grid should have real penalties while you are not home. I completely agree with you. I feel as though there are different approaches that we can take to get to the solution. The one that Malcanis have suggested are more "macro" level changes, which are basically a complete overhaul of the way jump mechanics work in the game. The changes suggested would in a way solve the problem, but I feel as though this would just make the game more difficult for the average player, and would be just adding another pain point to people who are increasingly feeling as though nullsec is not for them. They might be seen as another "nerf nullsec" change, much like the 5% bounty nerf that comes with the ESS and be met with hostility. I would like to see more "micro" level changes, where there are not additional limitations added based on ship type, but rather more pressure be put on fleets to be able to move around quickly or be split into more fleets effectively. Capital fleets, to a lesser extent battleship fleets, and very large tidi-inducing fleets are pretty slow movers and vulnerable to asymmetric warfare when they are combat-ready in system. The new warp speed changes have amplified this shortcoming. This would make individual fights more strategically interesting and make wars more about fighting and skill rather than logistical ability. Both approaches would change the game for the better and solve most of the problems that we are having. The macro level approach is more dependent on logistics and in-game timers. I feel that the micro level approach would be more reliant on players and hence, better for the game.
Can you give some examples of what these "micro level" changes would be? because it sounds like you're decribing a new sov system, and that sounds even more macro than a combined jumpclone/bridge/cyno jump timer pool.
1 Kings 12:11
|
CroisisCZ
BAND of MAGNUS
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:10:00 -
[258] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection.
Isnt the root of the problem a simple fact that most of the 0.0 came to a point where you are either with CFC, against CFC or mostly insignificant?
Blue donut is what makes people fight super large battles because there is nothing else to do. |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1691
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:16:00 -
[259] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Can you give some examples of what these "micro level" changes would be? because it sounds like you're decribing a new sov system, and that sounds even more macro than a combined jumpclone/bridge/cyno jump timer pool.
Reduce the amount of timers needed to take a system. There would be more do-or-die timers, more than likely there would be more than one coming out at once. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:17:00 -
[260] - Quote
Power projection is an issue in EvE, but I don't think that's going to solve the 4k battles bringing the server to its knees.
To solve the problem of "too many people in system", we need to implement a mechanic that gets people back OUT of system. The only ingame means (at the moment) to force someone out of a system is by podding them.
Is there perhaps another mechanic that may be implemented to get players back out of system, ideally before the server goes bonkers?
Off the cuff example: A new AOE mechanic that teleports everyone on grid randomly into other systems within the constellation. This could from a player driven device that causes it, or it could be a "feature" of space destabilizing because (insert lore) and the server automatically implements this anytime server load exceeds some threshhold from some time period.
|
|
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:23:00 -
[261] - Quote
but I'm Malcanis' number one fan! not some burnt out messageboard poster
loljk I'm tgr |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1691
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:23:00 -
[262] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Malcanis wrote:Can you give some examples of what these "micro level" changes would be? because it sounds like you're decribing a new sov system, and that sounds even more macro than a combined jumpclone/bridge/cyno jump timer pool. Reduce the amount of timers needed to take a system. There would be more do-or-die timers, more than likely there would be more than one coming out at once.
Reduce the EHP on sov structures so that a smaller gang can go through the timer quicker. |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:24:00 -
[263] - Quote
reduce the number of conquerable systems to encompass all of Providence and nothing else, problem solved. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:25:00 -
[264] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Malcanis wrote:Can you give some examples of what these "micro level" changes would be? because it sounds like you're decribing a new sov system, and that sounds even more macro than a combined jumpclone/bridge/cyno jump timer pool. Reduce the amount of timers needed to take a system. There would be more do-or-die timers, more than likely there would be more than one coming out at once.
I'm not suggest adding FW plexes to the nullsec sov game, but I'd like to point out some very strong points that Plexes offer:
1.) An individual can make a difference in the flipping of a system. The FW plexes are small scale objectives that can escalate but fundamentally my be completed by a solo pilot.
2.) They are time sensitive. The opposing side only has a limited amount of time to stop you from completing the objective. The limited opportunity to response limits the size of the response.
3.) There are multiple objectives available in a single system. This has the effect of forcing pilots to spread out to maximize their efforts, creating weak points and strong points of attack.
A sov system with distributed small scale objectives would go a long way reducing the 4k man battlefields (which I don't think is something CCP actually wants to achieve).
|
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:26:00 -
[265] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm not suggest adding FW plexes to the nullsec sov game, but I'd like to point out some very strong points that Plexes offer:
1.) An individual can make a difference in the flipping of a system. The FW plexes are small scale objectives that can escalate but fundamentally my be completed by a solo pilot.
2.) They are time sensitive. The opposing side only has a limited amount of time to stop you from completing the objective. The limited opportunity to response limits the size of the response.
3.) There are multiple objectives available in a single system. This has the effect of forcing pilots to spread out to maximize their efforts, creating weak points and strong points of attack.
A sov system with distributed small scale objectives would go a long way reducing the 4k man battlefields (which I don't think is something CCP actually wants to achieve).
because 5 people in stabbed bombers taking all of CFC's sov will work as intended. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:30:00 -
[266] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'm not suggest adding FW plexes to the nullsec sov game, but I'd like to point out some very strong points that Plexes offer:
1.) An individual can make a difference in the flipping of a system. The FW plexes are small scale objectives that can escalate but fundamentally my be completed by a solo pilot.
2.) They are time sensitive. The opposing side only has a limited amount of time to stop you from completing the objective. The limited opportunity to response limits the size of the response.
3.) There are multiple objectives available in a single system. This has the effect of forcing pilots to spread out to maximize their efforts, creating weak points and strong points of attack.
A sov system with distributed small scale objectives would go a long way reducing the 4k man battlefields (which I don't think is something CCP actually wants to achieve).
because 5 people in stabbed bombers taking all of CFC's sov will work as intended.
Perhaps these objectives needs to have a 50km warp bubble around it, where cloaks & cyno's don't function either either... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:37:00 -
[267] - Quote
This really is the answer to the problem:
We need to implement a mechanic that gets people back OUT of system.
Quote: Off the cuff example: A new AOE mechanic that teleports everyone on grid randomly into other systems within the constellation. --- This could from a player driven device that causes it -- This could be a "feature" of space destabilizing because (insert lore) and the server automatically implements this anytime the server load exceeds some threshold from some time period.
|
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
267
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:39:00 -
[268] - Quote
holy hell you're special Gizznitt. |
Molenius Morrowinger
M - Intergalactics Inq.
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:40:00 -
[269] - Quote
Blob can be reduced by adding some RL implications when there are too many ships on the grid: 1. which adds alot of radiowave noise which cause slower lock time because of the signal interference. Same can be applied to drones sine the all frequency channels are used which adds "lag" in operating them due to the noise in signal. 2. AOE ship explosions can damage ships nearby. Bigger ship = more damage, I know it adds more load on the server but not more than single bomb explosion, 3. Bridg jump should cost fuel. Bigger ship = more energy = more fuel. Not sure if there is already cap on the titan on how many ships can be jumped. Tital jump drive must be overheated after using certain amount of energy thus disabled for some time to cool itself down. 4. More ships on the grid less chance to hit on the enemy. It is not necessary to calculate line of sight for the each ship (although it would be awesome), just reduce damage depending on the number of ships on the grid. I.e. some static debuff applied when grid becomes overcrowded.
Not silver bullet, but can reduce the number of ships coming on grid. Saying this SOV system needs to be fixed. There should be multiple battles happening in the constellations in order to take the control. There are already alot of suggestions for this so I'll not iterate. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:40:00 -
[270] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:This really is the answer to the problem: We need to implement a mechanic that gets people back OUT of system.Quote: Off the cuff example: A new AOE mechanic that teleports everyone on grid randomly into other systems within the constellation. --- This could from a player driven device that causes it -- This could be a "feature" of space destabilizing because (insert lore) and the server automatically implements this anytime the server load exceeds some threshold from some time period.
Hmmmm... let me think about that one... . |
|
Net Malone
Bane Heavy Industries Inver Brass
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:44:00 -
[271] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
Yea, why only one battlefield per day ? BL was waiting 5 hours. IMO they should go north and grind something there :)
Quote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
HANDS OFF ORDINAR PLAYERS TOYS !!!
Coalitions - you see, there is no skill to form coalitions - are the problem. You need to postpone forming such monsters for few years. What players fly _is not a problem_. CCP need/wants to destroy source of blobs.
You see, technetium was a good idea - one valuable resource to fight for owning mines. But idea don't catched becouse of NIPs or maybe too powerfull blocks. Problem is political.
You see, you probably forgot, ordinar player is useless, rightless and helpless entity in this game.
You want with small bunch of friends to own some system ? You can't. Ah right... You can rent a system... What destroys players game experience ? Massive coalitions.
You found beautifull system far, far from HS, no one is realy using it becouse it is -0.2 or something. You want to grind, for example, custom offices. But you can't ! Why ? Becouse someone from other side of Universe do not allow you... And no, transportation problem is secondary or tertiaty here. Primary problem is: someone from other side of Universe should not be even concerned what is happening @ other side !
So, real problem is: actions of single player have no value - sov system prevent it.
Quote: Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle?
NO !
Quote: Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
YES !
Quote: If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
Are you CCP PR specialist now ? You should be on players side or I am wrong ? You just blakmailing community !
4k blob is CCP problem, they create situation that ONLY WAY to defend yourself is by forming big-number-fleets.
But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly.
"Rubicon" ? "No turning back" ? Burning bridges ? Maybe CCP is going down ? But if not, then, please, do something for ordinary player. Tip: ppls play games to achieve something... Actually, on so many levels, players are so poor and helpless drones...
Btw. dear CCP, you wrote ESS is "CSM contribution"... Could you give us a names of that unwise CSM members ? If you want to be honest could you give us what they REALY proposed too ? I asking becouse it is... umm... little useless. IMO, of course.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:47:00 -
[272] - Quote
Trying to limit a player from getting somewhere is dangerous, but there is things that can be done to dictate what they bring and how fast they bring it. That is where it would become more strategic. Everyone should refer to the production triangle.
Pick two.
Of course right now we get to pick all three and sometimes add a fourth for good measure... . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:49:00 -
[273] - Quote
Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? . |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:52:00 -
[274] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:This really is the answer to the problem: We need to implement a mechanic that gets people back OUT of system.Quote: Off the cuff example: A new AOE mechanic that teleports everyone on grid randomly into other systems within the constellation. --- This could from a player driven device that causes it -- This could be a "feature" of space destabilizing because (insert lore) and the server automatically implements this anytime the server load exceeds some threshold from some time period.
Hmmmm... let me think about that one...
I understand the off the cuff example has flaws, but the general point is still the same.
The server cannot handle everything we throw at it and there Already EXISTS a cap on how many pilots can function within a system. Just because this cap is server-determined, doesn't alter the fact that there still exists a cap (and there ALWAYS will be). Our options are deal with the traffic jam and the node crashes and the lag (accepting it as part of our game play), or find a means to move people out of system when they overcrowd it.
If you leave the people already in system there, you create a race on "how can fill up the system first". So you need another means to decide who stays and who goes. You also need a system that moves them along in a fair manner. Otherwise nothing gets solved, and its 4000 on todays hardware, and 6000 on tomorrows hardware, but we will still keep hitting limits and we'll still be in the same mess. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:53:00 -
[275] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? It wouldn't get rid of the blocs though. It wouldn't get rid of the 4000 man fights either. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
774
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:56:00 -
[276] - Quote
1. Distribute timers to multiple focus points in multiple systems. So GÇÿthe timerGÇÖ actually becomes several spatially distinct targets. 2. Nerf projection (timers, fuel, range pool, whatever). This will make controlling vast areas of space more difficult and give the local force an advantage. 3. Add lots of new space (queue player-built stargates) to dilute the current blocs. In conjunction with projection nerfs this will make coalitions less viable.
The risk of above is that null would stagnate with alliances only concerned about their home systems.
4. Make truesec dynamic. Think of it as GÇÿresource depletionGÇÖ and GÇÿresource growthGÇÖ. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:58:00 -
[277] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? It wouldn't get rid of the blocs though. It wouldn't get rid of the 4000 man fights either. Why be part of a bloc if you can't get help them defend or attack something on the other side of the game? Why send everyone and everything if that means that by the time you came back home, it had been pillaged and burned to the ground? . |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:07:00 -
[278] - Quote
Zappity wrote:1. Distribute timers to multiple focus points in multiple systems. So GÇÿthe timerGÇÖ actually becomes several spatially distinct targets. 2. Nerf projection (timers, fuel, range pool, whatever). This will make controlling vast areas of space more difficult and give the local force an advantage. 3. Add lots of new space (queue player-built stargates) to dilute the current blocs. In conjunction with projection nerfs this will make coalitions less viable.
The risk of above is that null would stagnate with alliances only concerned about their home systems.
4. Make truesec dynamic. Think of it as GÇÿresource depletionGÇÖ and GÇÿresource growthGÇÖ. 1, 2 will be good. 3 will just end up being what we have now, power blocs dropping TCU's all over and claiming huge areas to rent out.
To truly break up the blocs you need to remove the threat that causes them. Take FCON up in branch, even though they're technically far far away in the top right corner of the map, the regional in UJY-HE and DKUK-G puts them 10 minutes or less from subcap fleets out of VFK and surrounds. Likewise for Razor in Tenal, the HB-5L3 regional jump to SF-XJS puts the Drone region forces a few minutes subcap run from their space, and the Drone regions are physically further from Tenal than Fountain is...
Tenal, Branch and Venal were they not linked to far away regions by regional jumps should be one distinct smaller powerbloc not a member of a bloc that reaches from Tenal to Paragon Soul. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
774
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:11:00 -
[279] - Quote
But how would a bloc enforce an even vaster renter empire without projection? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:25:00 -
[280] - Quote
Zappity wrote:But how would a bloc enforce an even vaster renter empire without projection? I'm not saying its not a good idea but it'll be circumvented by using multiple fleets. The bigger the coalition, the more fleets they can afford to have. Wouldn't even need to be functionally superior fleets aimed at winning either. Just enough throw away battleships and other subcaps to make the node terribad enough to stall until your timers reset to jump your caps up. |
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
71
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:47:00 -
[281] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything.
The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB.
We play sov wars, because stakes are high.
Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
2905
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:49:00 -
[282] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. Maneuver warfare. Get your fleets in place ahead of the other guy. Win.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc |
CroisisCZ
BAND of MAGNUS
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:53:00 -
[283] - Quote
What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:56:00 -
[284] - Quote
Molenius Morrowinger wrote:Malcanis wrote:What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection. Maybe power projection should not be linear but rather logarithmic. Thus effort of bringing more people will not worth the benefit of doing it. And the optimal point must be around the numbers which server can deal with minus extra buffer.
And how does that not describe my proposal?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:57:00 -
[285] - Quote
CroisisCZ wrote:What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities...
Because the nullblocs make their real money from active income: they rent out space which easy power projection allows them to dominate. The renters make their ISK from ratting, mining, plexing, etc and pay a tithe to their landlord.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Alice Ituin
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:58:00 -
[286] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: We play sov wars, because stakes are high.
Orly? What's this then? "Blowing some ships up is fine but don't touch us where it would really hurt" ?? |
CroisisCZ
BAND of MAGNUS
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:03:00 -
[287] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CroisisCZ wrote:What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities... Because the nullblocs make their real money from active income: they rent out space which easy power projection allows them to dominate. The renters make their ISK from ratting, mining, plexing, etc and pay a tithe to their landlord.
Yeah, by "passive" I meant mainly moongoo and renting space. |
Marsha Mallow
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Why be part of a bloc if you can't get help them defend or attack something on the other side of the game? Why send everyone and everything if that means that by the time you came back home, it had been pillaged and burned to the ground? Depends how blocs define themselves, ie territorial, social or economic.
You don't even need to undock as part of a NIP'd economic group to defend assets under attack; just dont threaten them. - |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:03:00 -
[289] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed.
Would the CFC have been quite so eager to 100% commit to saving -A-'s system if it meant leaving their northern regions undefended for a week?
It's precisely because the stakes are high that there has to be a motivation for very large groups not to commit their entire strength to a single fight. At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this.
"Find a way"? What way? Should the opposing sides form up a fleet each and then the GMs lock the system? How else are you going to stop people as motivated as you describe? Describe your system. Because it seems that my proposal DOES give them that motivation, and you're saying "nuh uh, I don't like a real, concrete reason not to dogpile, I want some magical mechanism that doesn't cause any inconvenience or change but is still somehow effective enough to stop them doing what they really really want to"
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:06:00 -
[290] - Quote
CroisisCZ wrote:Malcanis wrote:CroisisCZ wrote:What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities... Because the nullblocs make their real money from active income: they rent out space which easy power projection allows them to dominate. The renters make their ISK from ratting, mining, plexing, etc and pay a tithe to their landlord. Yeah, by "passive" I meant mainly moongoo and renting space.
And how do you "nerf" renting? There's no renting mechanic in game. It's just direct ISK transfer based on the ability and willingness of the landlord to easily stop anyone in they space they claim, and the willingness of the renters to pay a certain amount of ISK for the use of that space.
I'm not even against renting. There are a lot of things going for it. What I'm against is a single grouping being able to defend essentially the entire map.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4764
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:09:00 -
[291] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this.
Few hours for the unorganized, but for the ones with cyno chains and fuel ready to go; about 10-15 minutes. . |
CroisisCZ
BAND of MAGNUS
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:13:00 -
[292] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
And how do you "nerf" renting? There's no renting mechanic in game. It's just direct ISK transfer based on the ability and willingness of the landlord to easily stop anyone in they space they claim, and the willingness of the renters to pay a certain amount of ISK for the use of that space.
I'm not even against renting. There are a lot of things going for it. What I'm against is a single grouping being able to defend essentially the entire map.
I honestly do not know but that doesnt meant someone else cant come up with an idea Do you think that some kind of formal renting system provided by game itself could solve it or would people just keep using the current model? Although I admit that it would be hard to limit this income by some hard limitations (and also against the sandbox policy). |
Anomaly One
177
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:15:00 -
[293] - Quote
Alice Ituin wrote:Skia Aumer wrote: We play sov wars, because stakes are high.
Orly? What's this then? "Blowing some ships up is fine but don't touch us where it would really hurt" ??
woah, them carebears.. EvE: where non consenual pvp happens! except in null sec!
this is a deadlock. Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC |
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:18:00 -
[294] - Quote
Work needs to be done on the standings system of coalitions, all this talk of cooldowns on capital jumps is absolute garbage, as is he talk of aurum/fuel cost of using gates, why should I have to fork out real money/in game money to go on a 60 system roam looking for targets?
The more blues a coalition has the less HP it's member alliance sov structures has in a ratio that expands as the numbers increase, and as they force project the numbers reduce as well according to how many coalition members have extended from their own space into enemy territory, that means they have to split forces to defend their space.
The information is already available in game due to the standing system, yes there will be ways to 'fool' the calculations but with a little effort from CCP it could be made viable. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:28:00 -
[295] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. Would the CFC have been quite so eager to 100% commit to saving -A-'s system if it meant leaving their northern regions undefended for a week? It's precisely because the stakes are high that there has to be a motivation for very large groups not to commit their entire strength to a single fight. At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this. "Find a way"? What way? Should the opposing sides form up a fleet each and then the GMs lock the system? How else are you going to stop people as motivated as you describe? Describe your system. Because it seems that my proposal DOES give them that motivation, and you're saying "nuh uh, I don't like a real, concrete reason not to dogpile, I want some magical mechanism that doesn't cause any inconvenience or change but is still somehow effective enough to stop them doing what they really really want to" You're ideas are great. But given that the limit is 2000 vs 2000. Do the coalitions have to move their entire fleets. They only need to 3000 or so because they can't commit more than that anyway into a fight without the server having a heart attack.
CFC and N3/PL certainly have more than that number x a lot. The real bottleneck is people ala CFC's call to train into Omegafleet dreads. They could probably give every CFC member a free dread if you can believe their propaganda machine. |
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:36:00 -
[296] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4766
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:38:00 -
[297] - Quote
Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. . |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8660
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:45:00 -
[298] - Quote
Well that isn't vague at all. My EVE Videos |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1688
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:47:00 -
[299] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
yes yes and yes.
I have been asking for this for years.
0.0 was way more fun before jf titan bridge and jump networks.
but they are all in the game.
what i would do is make it so titans cant bridge inside of pos shields and make the jump networks deployable structures that are deployed in safe spots that can be probed out and activated by hacking if you are a nuet or red.
that and i would make the jump drive an actual module the ship has to fit and it has a long cycle time of like 2 hours and half jump range also greatly increase the LY between regions.
that way there would be pockets that are protected from adjacent hot drops.
as for the jf i would change the ship from having a cargo bay to having a SMA.
that way the JF would be used to transport fully fit ships around.
if you want to move regular stuff you need a standard Freighter and have to use jump networks which can easily be camped and bubbled or use stargates which can also be camped and bubbled.
some of the most fun fights back in the day were caused by escorting trains of freighters up to null sec.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:49:00 -
[300] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:
Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system.
Agreed, so tactical deployment should count for something, as should competence in PvP, TiDi has made competent tactics irrelevant, it gives bad players 'time' to react to good decisions from better players, fighting outnumbered is almost becoming irrelevant due to tidi. |
|
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:52:00 -
[301] - Quote
Too many goons wanting to dumb the game down in this thread though. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4767
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:57:00 -
[302] - Quote
Another issue is:
Why pew pew before a timer expires when I can just wait till the timer is up and dump in everyone when it matters?
Again, yet another issue that adds to the main problem. . |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4342
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:58:00 -
[303] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:I wonder, if CCP hadn't spent all that money on Dust and WOD, and instead, put it into the Eve servers (were the money was made) if we could actually have the fights CCP brag about?
No, there are absolute limits to scalability. It's better to think of scalability in a system like Eve as being more like the skill system: You can dump months and months and months and months into making it better and only wind up with a 5% improvement.
That said, sometimes the server is all kinds of ****** up and you chose the wrong algorithm to start with. In cases like that you can see some pretty impressive gains - but doing something like that is very much like changing the engines in an airplane in flight. Potentially possible, but scary as **** and you're probably going down in the not fun way.
-Liang
Ed: Also, saying that CCP should put all of their money resources into Eve is like telling them that they should just kill their company. It's not that Eve is a bad product, but true stability in a game company comes from having more than one hit. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
928
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:12:00 -
[304] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
It seems to me your proposed changes would hurt smaller alliances living in npc null significantly. Take for example an alliance living in stain. To my knowledge, the only way to move a JF there without going through sov is to jump from Saminer/Sagain to NRT4 or T-NN. Now that you've reached the edge of stain, you'll require at least one (and quite possibly two) jumps to hit the entirety of stain. So, for an alliance living in some random pocket of stain, we're talking about 20-30 ly of travel one way for logistics (40-60 light years for round trip).
Now, there were two proposed two changes, a 24hr jump drive cooldown and later a distance based limitation. In the above example, either one could be crippling for such an alliance. On the other hand, a large alliance/coalition could keep one JF pilot on hand for each leg of the trip. One pilot handles Saminer to NRT4, another handles the next leg, and so on and so forth. Such a large, well organized alliance or coalition will have absolutely no problems in adopting to said changes.
So, effectively, the changes have made logistics far more difficult for smaller independent entities while the logistics branch of a large alliance would be able to absorb the changes with ease. |
Zircon Dasher
343
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:26:00 -
[305] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: It seems to me your proposed changes would hurt smaller alliances living in npc null significantly.
Take for example an alliance living in stain. To my knowledge, the only way to move a JF there without going through sov is to jump from Saminer/Sagain to NRT4 or T-NN. Now that you've reached the edge of stain, you'll require at least one (and quite possibly two) jumps to hit the entirety of stain. So, for an alliance living in some random pocket of stain, we're talking about 20-30 ly of travel one way for logistics (40-60 light years for round trip).
Now, there were two proposed two changes, a 24hr jump drive cooldown and later a distance based limitation. In the above example, either one could be crippling for such an alliance. On the other hand, a large alliance/coalition could keep one JF pilot on hand for each leg of the trip. One pilot handles Saminer to NRT4, another handles the next leg, and so on and so forth. Such a large, well organized alliance or coalition will have absolutely no problems in adopting to said changes.
So, effectively, the changes have made logistics far more difficult for smaller independent entities while the logistics branch of a large alliance would be able to absorb the changes with ease.
Its Deja Vu all over again.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
532
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:29:00 -
[306] - Quote
If you nerf ship projection (which is needed) then you also have to nerf JC's. The isk mountains would just turn into duplicated fleets in all corners of the map.
But then if you nerf jump clones then there will be numerous alt accounts - wouldn't CCP just love that?
CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:35:00 -
[307] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Its Deja Vu all over again.
Yep, Malcanis is proposing to 'get more friends' it doesn't solve anything but as he is part of the largest coalition the game has ever seen and having more friends is the problem.
|
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
95
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:36:00 -
[308] - Quote
Space honoure and premade fights. Lawyers making deals for 40% of the 0.0 map.
Full cringe mode is on, thats for sure.
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
930
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:37:00 -
[309] - Quote
Honestly, the more i think about it, the more i think it's a bad idea.
Consider alts. Each account has 3 character slots. Just train a carrier/dread on another slot on your main. A year after this change hits everyone in null will have a forward deploy alt and a home defense alt. So yeah, none of those power projection changes will matter. Sure the forward deployed capitals can't get back to their home region in a day, but why would they need to?
At best you're pushing back the power projection problem by a year, maybe two. Probably far less, given that anyone that has a super/titan probably does so on a dedicated character anyway, separate from their briefcase carrier/main. So entities like PL/NC. may well retain most of their power projection capabilities despite the change. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4768
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:40:00 -
[310] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:If you nerf ship projection (which is needed) then you also have to nerf JC's. The isk mountains would just turn into duplicated fleets in all corners of the map.
But then if you nerf jump clones then there will be numerous alt accounts - wouldn't CCP just love that? Which is why all forms of 'teleportation' need to pull from the same pool of light years with a cap, like I described earlier:
Marlona Sky wrote:Instead of the once per day deal for jump drives, it should be more functional in light years with a cap.
So everything that makes you go from one system to another without taking gates eats away at this pool of power projection. That includes jump drives, jump bridges, titan bridges, jump clones and even pod deaths. We already have these new skills in regards to having more clones and lower time to clone jump. So re-tasking them to enhance the power projection pool can be done without introducing new skills players have to train.
This would mean players would need to actually be strategic how they wanted to spend this pool. Could be all at once with jumping a carrier a time or two exhausting it or moving several different clones to a staging system so they can be more flexible on hardworking to give them an edge in flying a variety of ships. Also it would have more meaning to podding someone who is far away from their medical clone station. Because you know they will not be jumping a Slowcat carrier on your face 30 seconds later. Podding some brought a cheap damp Celestis would not mean they would be right back via titan bridge with yet another Celestis moments later.
The only remaining matter is figuring out a balanced cap on the power projection pool. . |
|
Zircon Dasher
343
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:43:00 -
[311] - Quote
Nooodlzs wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:
Its Deja Vu all over again.
Yep, Malcanis is proposing to 'get more friends' it doesn't solve anything but as he is part of the largest coalition the game has ever seen and having more friends is the problem.
Actually it was in reference to the most common complaint that was leveled at the "Nerf Caps/JB/JF!" crowd about, oh, 3.5 years ago.
The next argument will be how it will take more CharacterHours to do X.....and nobody likes to do X.... so it will ruin fun and make EVE die. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
fukier
1141
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:49:00 -
[312] - Quote
I made a thread about this last year:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=193738
glad to see one year later the CSM see it as a problem At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Ke'lera
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:50:00 -
[313] - Quote
No suggestion will work, because no null sec entity will accept a radical change to their way of life or give up their hold, either way the state of null has been and will remain set for years now. Unless CCP drops a bomb on null and scatters them all there is no way to get rid of these two power blocs, it's just one giant big blue consensual pvp doughnut.
and by bomb that is to get rid/drastically reduce timers, force all out war, then any and every corp/alliance can/will make claim to sov, capsuleers will "gods" how they are depicted.. that is if you want null to be a constant everlasting warfare, because any other solution will keep the power blocs forever dominant, if not then don't complain about lag fest because all you want is organized fights where the outcome is set before it even begun.
One thing remains true, the first company to make an efficient warfare system/ conquest claim system should sweep a large number of players, so we'll just have to wait. Discouraging null sec blob warfare |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
532
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 23:50:00 -
[314] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Is there perhaps another mechanic that may be implemented to get players back out of system, ideally before the server goes bonkers?
Off the cuff example: A new AOE mechanic that teleports everyone on grid randomly into other systems within the constellation. This could from a player driven device that causes it, or it could be a "feature" of space destabilizing because (insert lore) and the server automatically implements this anytime server load exceeds some threshhold from some time period.
Workable or not - the idea of this made me ROFLMAO!
"Oh noes! Half of our logi just bounced 3 jumps away!" CCP Punkturis-á "I want to get in on the goodposter circle jerk!"
|
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:21:00 -
[315] - Quote
The idea of 'renting' a system is perverse, IMO. If the Alliance/Corp does not use it or actually actively occupy it, they shouldn't be there except to fight or pass through. Why do they 'need' so many systems?! I know the Alliance leaders will resist losing their free ISK generator, but the game is limping along. Break up the Alliances by eliminating several jump routes to make it harder to move through Null, limit jump drives and bridges significantly, reduce timers to a few days, increase fuel costs across the board, and modify sov mechanics to a single massive fight isn't going to win you anything. Spread out sov objectives between several systems so there isn't a single huge blob moving around, instead there are several small ones simultaneously. |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
267
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:25:00 -
[316] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4130056#post4130056
this looks like a Madcanis OP |
Zircon Dasher
343
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:25:00 -
[317] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: Which is why all forms of 'teleportation' need to pull from the same pool of light years with a cap, like I described earlier:
If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:42:00 -
[318] - Quote
Nooodlzs wrote:Work needs to be done on the standings system of coalitions, all this talk of cooldowns on capital jumps is absolute garbage, as is the talk of aurum/fuel cost of using gates, why should I have to fork out real money/in game money to go on a 60 system roam looking for targets?
The more blues a coalition has the less HP it's member alliance sov structures has in a ratio that expands as the numbers increase, and as they force project the numbers reduce as well according to how many coalition members have extended from their own space into enemy territory, that means they have to split forces to defend their space.
The information is already available in game due to the standing system, yes there will be ways to 'fool' the calculations but with a little effort from CCP it could be made viable.
And people definitely won't use out of game system to be un-trackable by CCP? The whole coalition thing is out of game anyway. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:44:00 -
[319] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: Which is why all forms of 'teleportation' need to pull from the same pool of light years with a cap, like I described earlier:
If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind?
And let's be honest... You can move a 4000 players from one end of the universe to the other within an hour simply utilizing interceptors. Groups like CFC would simply need an offensive fleet to move about to whatever "combat zone" existed, and a defensive fleet for home. Moving the pilots is trivial, although potentially tedious (but when has that ever stopped alliance warfare).
To stop force projection, you litterally need to inhibit Jump clones, gate travel, and jump travel to the extent it is impossible for you to buy stuff in Jita today, and make it out to Deklein before Wednesday.
The reality of the situation is, that players will congregate and amass for the action, and that fundamentally, the only solution is to implement a mechanic that moves players out of the system if the system becomes overburdened. Doing this fairly, in a manner that structure timers and stuff don't end up being abused, is non-trivial. But without it, you will always be able to move more and more and more pilots into a system until the node crashes. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8662
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:45:00 -
[320] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:The whole coalition thing is out of game anyway. It is and it isn't. My EVE Videos |
|
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:48:00 -
[321] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system.
So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local?
Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker.
Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 00:58:00 -
[322] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local? Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker. Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV?
1.) There are many forms of activity: -- Market activity -- S&I Activity -- Killing rats -- Logistical activity. -- Harvesting resources (mining, moongoo, PI, etc). -- PvP in a system
2.) There is also investments that can be made to a system: TCU, IHUB, IHUB upgrades, Station, POS deployements, etc.
Sov could be based around your activity in a system, which should make your investments safer or less safe. IMO, if you aren't using a system, it should be easily conquerable (Like NO RF timers on any of your structures or claim units). It should still be claimable, just hard to defend from an attack. Likewise, if you are using a system, you should be allotted RF timers to defend it, and possibly other boons to boot.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4770
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:09:00 -
[323] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: Which is why all forms of 'teleportation' need to pull from the same pool of light years with a cap, like I described earlier:
If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind? And let's be honest... You can move a 4000 players from one end of the universe to the other within an hour simply utilizing interceptors. Groups like CFC would simply need an offensive fleet to move about to whatever "combat zone" existed, and a defensive fleet for home. Moving the pilots is trivial, although potentially tedious (but when has that ever stopped alliance warfare). To stop force projection, you litterally need to inhibit Jump clones, gate travel, and jump travel to the extent it is impossible for you to buy stuff in Jita today, and make it out to Deklein before Wednesday. The reality of the situation is, that players will congregate and amass for the action, and that fundamentally, the only solution is to implement a mechanic that moves players out of the system if the system becomes overburdened. Doing this fairly, in a manner that structure timers and stuff don't end up being abused, is non-trivial. But without it, you will always be able to move more and more and more pilots into a system until the node crashes. Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map.
But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare? . |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:14:00 -
[324] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: Which is why all forms of 'teleportation' need to pull from the same pool of light years with a cap, like I described earlier:
If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind? And let's be honest... You can move a 4000 players from one end of the universe to the other within an hour simply utilizing interceptors. Groups like CFC would simply need an offensive fleet to move about to whatever "combat zone" existed, and a defensive fleet for home. Moving the pilots is trivial, although potentially tedious (but when has that ever stopped alliance warfare). To stop force projection, you litterally need to inhibit Jump clones, gate travel, and jump travel to the extent it is impossible for you to buy stuff in Jita today, and make it out to Deklein before Wednesday. The reality of the situation is, that players will congregate and amass for the action, and that fundamentally, the only solution is to implement a mechanic that moves players out of the system if the system becomes overburdened. Doing this fairly, in a manner that structure timers and stuff don't end up being abused, is non-trivial. But without it, you will always be able to move more and more and more pilots into a system until the node crashes. Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map. But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare?
A mass mechanic tied to your "jump" limit a la wormhole maybe to allow people to go where they want but not being able to bring the firepower where they want? Would player be willing to inty boat across the universe if they knew they have ship already staged close to the battle field waiting for them?
|
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:24:00 -
[325] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local? Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker. Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV? 1.) There are many forms of activity: -- Market activity -- S&I Activity -- Killing rats -- Logistical activity. -- Harvesting resources (mining, moongoo, PI, etc). -- PvP in a system 2.) There is also investments that can be made to a system: TCU, IHUB, IHUB upgrades, Station, POS deployements, etc. Sov could be based around your activity in a system, which should make your investments safer or less safe. IMO, if you aren't using a system, it should be easily conquerable (Like NO RF timers on any of your structures or claim units). It should still be claimable, just hard to defend from an attack. Likewise, if you are using a system, you should be allotted RF timers to defend it, and possibly other boons to boot.
I would change the structure so they are not "do or die" point of conflict. Make them matter but still require some activity in the system. Make the TCU spawn one of those billboard in game which would show the % of control the current holder has over the system. Then, make everything done in system matter to a point so destroying the TCU is not always spawning such crazy fleet fight. Any fueled POS gives some control to the defender, destroying them reduce it. Rats killed by defender raise the control while attacker make it go down. Make the system a tug-of-war for the control of it instead of those one time OP deciding all of it. Recent system change would also affect neighboring system to a point but for some time only if the defending side manage to hold the line for some time.
And damn is there probably a hell of a lot of way to abuse all of this that I can't think of... |
Zircon Dasher
344
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:40:00 -
[326] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map.
But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare?
I know you were responding to Gizznitt but what he said and what I had in mind are slightly different.
I was thinking more about regional caps. If projection gets smaller, it makes sense to start duplicating the fleet at the regional level (where regional = Pool/2 or 4or whatever and 'duplicating'= alts+caps). That could be a lot more infrastructure than what is currently held, but we are only talking time and ISK. Which really means time. Thus why I asked if you meant a universal pool. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:46:00 -
[327] - Quote
I think we are having a miscommunication issue:
Malcanis wrote:The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
He suggested fragmenting the universe by making it hard to move from one end of it to the other (using cap boosters and consumable fuel). You suggested limiting travel by LY's instead of consumables. However, you left of gate-travel (something Malcanis included).
Marlona Sky wrote:Instead of the once per day deal for jump drives, it should be more functional in light years with a cap.
So everything that makes you go from one system to another without taking gates eats away at this pool of power projection. That includes jump drives, jump bridges, titan bridges, jump clones and even pod deaths.
Zircon then brought up an obvious counterpoint: Large powers in the game can easily have multiple fleets of ships (simply waiting for pilots) located throughout the galaxy. They really only need 1 home defense fleet (in case **** happens), and one offensive fleet (to be honorable third parties with) to maintain a very similar force projection that they enjoy today.
Marlona Sky wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:
If the pool is player/corp/alliance based why does this keep duplicate fleets from happening? Did you have a universal 'teleportation' pool in mind?
And let's be honest... You can move a 4000 players from one end of the universe to the other within an hour simply utilizing interceptors. Groups like CFC would simply need an offensive fleet to move about to whatever "combat zone" existed, and a defensive fleet for home. Moving the pilots is trivial, although potentially tedious (but when has that ever stopped alliance warfare). To stop force projection, you litterally need to inhibit Jump clones, gate travel, and jump travel to the extent it is impossible for you to buy stuff in Jita today, and make it out to Deklein before Wednesday. The reality of the situation is, that players will congregate and amass for the action, and that fundamentally, the only solution is to implement a mechanic that moves players out of the system if the system becomes overburdened. Doing this fairly, in a manner that structure timers and stuff don't end up being abused, is non-trivial. But without it, you will always be able to move more and more and more pilots into a system until the node crashes. Sorry if I am so bold to say 4000 interceptors is vastly different than 4000 capitals. And even with a t2 travel fit interceptor, warp speed rigs and no implants, it actually does take a solid hour or more to travel the entire map. But again, back to interceptors to power project. How much firepower are they bringing compared to capital ships? What kind of staying power do they have compared to capital ships? What kind of impact do those interceptors have in sovereignty warfare?
Those 4000 inties, that take an hour to travel from one ass-end of the verse to the next, then swap ships into BS's and carriers and dreadnaughts and go pewpew. If somebody attacks their home system, they reship to inties and can defend it within an hour or so.
My point: You have to limit ALL TRAVEL across the universe, or you solve nothing in regards to force projection.
And if the CFC can still get back to VFK to stop some incoming force from harming them within a timely fashion (see inty travel), they will always stick their head into HED-GP because that's where the action is.
The ONLY solution to server-crashing populations taking down a node or causing massive lag-induced problems is to LIMIT the population in a system. That limit ALREADY EXISTS whether you want to admit it or not (it is just a function of hardware capability).
If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4343
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:54:00 -
[328] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.
I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3412
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 01:57:00 -
[329] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.
I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places. -Liang
As pointed out before: Image taking sov required you to be in 4 places at once:
Side A divies up their forces and puts 500 pilots in each place. Side B moves everyone to one or two places and crushes 1/4 or 1/2 of the enemy forces with overwhelming numbers/firepower.
How long can Side A keep that strategy up and expect to win the war? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8663
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 02:00:00 -
[330] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.
I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places. -Liang I'd like your posts if you didn't constantly assume I would have no idea who wrote them if you didn't tell me. My EVE Videos |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4343
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 02:01:00 -
[331] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.
I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places. -Liang As pointed out before: Image taking sov required you to be in 4 places at once: Side A divies up their forces and puts 500 pilots in each place. Side B moves everyone to one or two places and crushes 1/4 or 1/2 of the enemy forces with overwhelming numbers/firepower. How long can Side A keep that strategy up and expect to win the war?
Sure, but you have to admit the current game design behind sov rather provokes this kind of behavior.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3412
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 02:06:00 -
[332] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: If CCP truly wants to address it, they need to implement a mechanic that moves people out of system when the server reaches a critical load. To do that in a fair-to-all-sides manner is hard to implement, but without it we'll ALWAYS have capsuleers node crashing systems.
I believe CCP can make impressive gains by diversifying sov mechanics. We aren't going to prevent 4000 people from accumulating to smash something, but we definitely can make gains by requiring roughly equal sized groups in disparate places. -Liang As pointed out before: Image taking sov required you to be in 4 places at once: Side A divies up their forces and puts 500 pilots in each place. Side B moves everyone to one or two places and crushes 1/4 or 1/2 of the enemy forces with overwhelming numbers/firepower. How long can Side A keep that strategy up and expect to win the war? Sure, but you have to admit the current game design behind sov rather provokes this kind of behavior. -Liang
I fully admit that... 100+m EHP structure shoots with multiple RF timers. There is NO infrastructure within nullsec (related to sov or not), that doesn't take a significant fleet to actually destroy in a timely manner. And almost all of them have long RF timers that allow the locals to form up as big a response as they can muster. Couple this with Jump logistics, and the writing on the wall was designed a long time ago! I fully support revamping Sov!!! |
Align Planet1
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 03:01:00 -
[333] - Quote
I know I'm going to get abused for this, but I have a genuine question:
Does Eve need sov mechanics?
Without a sovereignty system, you could deploy and destroy any relevant structure (CSAAs, Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, etc.) anywhere in null sec. All solar systems could be assigned an index number (1 to 5) for available belts, sites, and complexes, and those numbers could be distributed according to true sec within the ranges of the current sov development indices. Stations could be (very expensively) upgraded to improve their defenses and industrial capabilities. All of this could be accomplished without the contrivances of TCUs, I-Hubs, and SBUs.
So, I guess the more detailed version of the question is: isn't the "sovereignty layer" of system control a bottleneck that necessitates blob warfare, and wouldn't a more diffuse array of immediately available targets encourage smaller scale fights and harassment? Wouldn't it be better for a given alliance to have a few "fortress systems" with stations that serve as the military and industrial heart of the empire, while forcing their excess populations out into the frontier to earn a living?
I don't know the answers to those questions. But I do think we're all jumping to "fix sov" conclusion without discussing whether system sov should exist in the first place. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4344
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 03:17:00 -
[334] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:Does Eve need sov mechanics?
Maybe. I think the psychological impact of ownership and investment is a very important aspect of the game. Removing sov means removing much of that sense of ownership and investment. You could argue that WH space does just fine without formal ownership, but I'd argue the personal investment in your system is much higher. After all, moving into and out of WH space is hard and risky, and you spend so much more time basically confined to one place.
I suppose it would be possible to calculate de facto ownership via some complicated formula involving each kind of interaction in a system. Maybe you could even assign today's bonuses based on how far ahead your alliance is from its competitors. But, I think that's not a particularly new suggestion.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Align Planet1
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 03:23:00 -
[335] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Does Eve need sov mechanics? I suppose it would be possible to calculate de facto ownership via some complicated formula involving each kind of interaction in a system. Maybe you could even assign today's bonuses based on how far ahead your alliance is from its competitors.
Yeah, I wouldn't even go that far. Thanks for the reply, though.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4344
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 04:10:00 -
[336] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Align Planet1 wrote:Does Eve need sov mechanics? I suppose it would be possible to calculate de facto ownership via some complicated formula involving each kind of interaction in a system. Maybe you could even assign today's bonuses based on how far ahead your alliance is from its competitors. Yeah, I wouldn't even go that far. Thanks for the reply, though.
Sure, but I can't help but feel I either didn't communicate well or you missed the point I was trying to make. Consider: - People don't really think of "owning" high sec, because there is no mechanism to do so and the barriers for entry and exit are low. - People don't really think of "owning" low sec, even though there's a mechanism to do so. The barriers for entry and exit are too low. - People don't really think of "owning" NPC null sec without having lived there for a very very long time. There is no formal support for ownership and the barriers for entry and exit are still somewhat low. - People do think of "owning" Sov null sec, because there is formal support for it and the barriers for ownership are quite high. - People do think of "owning" WH systems, despite there being no formal support for it. The barriers for entry and exit are very high.
Basically: Compelling gameplay in this area requires formal systems or extreme investment. So: yes, I believe that some kind of sov system is necessary.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1194
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 04:40:00 -
[337] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of. ... what happened to Malcanis??? reasonable post in forums???
fully supported
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Zappity
Kurved Space
775
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 06:41:00 -
[338] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of. ... Malcanis, is this an indication that there is a plan to fix null sov (that the incumbents won't like)? Or were you simply meaning that solution would not be well received? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
286
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 06:49:00 -
[339] - Quote
We have only ever gotten vague messages from CCP about changing Sov. Although there are hints they have basically said,"**** it." And then CCP going forward with making your own space, IE making gates and stuff, which would operate differently from nullsec sov.
The problem is this could take far longer then people could stand to actually be put into the game. |
Net Malone
Bane Heavy Industries Inver Brass
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 07:45:00 -
[340] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right?
You are wrong.
Limiting power projection - I understand power is damage in your post - do not make blobs smaller it make blobs BIGGER and fights takes more time.
CCP need to nerf big entities like coalitions not poor player toys. In current state of mechanic entities abuse mid-size player grups making them useless and worthless.
Political and economical reasons need to be changed. Bigger universe with different resources on each size. Proper economy need to be enforced via in-sandbox needs. Discover other ancient empire far, far from current one maybe ?
But if one entity like CFC is killing game whatever you do - deal with them ! Someone wrote: "We are here to destroy your game !". Let's go for beer with them ?
NIPs proof that ppls prefer relative state of peace over conflict. Coalition liders fooled CCP that they (20 - 50 players) are representing whole playerbase. That liders hijacked EvE ! Is CCP such naive ?
Best solution is to escalate number of systems. CCP: ask marketing department how they can use that.
And sov rules need to be changed - sov OWNERSHIP needs to be divided. Simple solution: eliminate aliance owned sov, all power to CORPORATIONS ! Watch out for abusers - current coalitions. If you just nerf jumping/bridging ability it will slow down moving forces a bit BUT DO NOT DIVIDE THEM ! Nerfing jumping will make a week to roll cap-ball from Period Basis to Branch and effectively control half of the universe. No one would want to build there his own home, becouse once in month it will be cleaned to the dust.
So divide coalition and do not make player live worse.
Escalating system numbers with sov changes is perfect way.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13591
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 08:46:00 -
[341] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of. ... Malcanis, is this an indication that there is a plan to fix null sov (that the incumbents won't like)? Or were you simply meaning that solution would not be well received?
The latter.
1 Kings 12:11
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8668
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 08:50:00 -
[342] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of. ... Malcanis, is this an indication that there is a plan to fix null sov (that the incumbents won't like)? Or were you simply meaning that solution would not be well received? Obviously the latter. CCP has no plan. My EVE Videos |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1487
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 09:01:00 -
[343] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local? Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker. Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV? Before timers, POS, deployable structures there was a pure presence based system.
It basically worked like this: (Based on Stain Alliance)
SA claimed the Stain region as their area. SA members lived in Stain. If a non-SA came into Stain people formed up fleets and chased them off or killed them. In this way SA was a presence based alliance. Extremely complex I know.
In comparison what we have now is non-presence real estate based alliance system. My favourite example is Period Basis and Tribal Band / Goonswarm.
Fountain and Delve were held by Test. Period Basis by Tribal. When Test abandoned Delve, Tribal felt so threatened they abandoned PB. However even though no Tribal presence remained in PB, PB still belonged to Tribal. Tribal not willing to fight Goons sold the entire region including outposts to Lawns, Lawns joined Goons transferring PB to Goons. This all happened despite Tribal, Lawns and Goons not having a physical presence in that region.
The people who remained in PB, I was one of them, could have banded together and attempted to killed any Goons, Tribal or Lawns who entered (presence based control) but that would not have changed the outcome. There were only around 100 people, any attempt to prevent would have been squashed by timer blocking and cap projection from Goons 100s of jumps away.
The irony of the current situation is that all this sov crap exists purely so someone can have pretty colors on a map and claim areas they don't use. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13591
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 09:23:00 -
[344] - Quote
Net Malone wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? You are wrong. Limiting power projection - I understand power is damage in your post - do not make blobs smaller it make blobs BIGGER and fights takes more time.
"power is damage"?
No, try actually reading the post, then things will make more sense.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1489
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 09:35:00 -
[345] - Quote
I'd also like to point out that you don't require sov to drop an outpost seed, build a capital, have a POS, own true sovereignty, you don't need TCUs or SBUs to have sov. Ping ponging is 100% avoidable without timers.
The reason people find these necessary is because they feel entitled to have a POS at every moon, an outpost in every second system, a jump bridge and cyno gen in almost every system, their alliance name displayed on everyone's screens. They want those things even when they don't reside in game anywhere nearby. They want timers so they don't have to be online to protect all that largesse. They want null to resemble high sec as much as possible.
There's no ping pong if you strategically deploy your outposts, POS, strategically recruit a global memberbase, but as Kaalrus once said "why should we have to recruit non-English speakers".
True sov is the systems you can hold with your membership around the clock. Fake sov are the systems the server holds for you with timers when your not even online. Fake sov is one of the main reasons we have aweful blobage and 10% + TiDi.
In my opinion. |
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 09:57:00 -
[346] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:I'd also like to point out that you don't require sov to drop an outpost seed, build a capital, have a POS, own true sovereignty, you don't need TCUs or SBUs to have sov. Ping ponging is 100% avoidable without timers.
The reason people find these necessary is because they feel entitled to have a POS at every moon, an outpost in every second system, a jump bridge and cyno gen in almost every system, their alliance name displayed on everyone's screens. They want those things even when they don't reside in game anywhere nearby. They want timers so they don't have to be online to protect all that largesse. They want null to resemble high sec as much as possible.
There's no ping pong if you strategically deploy your outposts, POS, strategically recruit a global memberbase, but as Kaalrus once said "why should we have to recruit non-English speakers".
True sov is the systems you can hold with your membership around the clock. Fake sov are the systems the server holds for you with timers when your not even online. Fake sov is one of the main reasons we have aweful blobage and 10% + TiDi.
In my opinion. Ofc, then remove npc null too.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1489
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 10:04:00 -
[347] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:I'd also like to point out that you don't require sov to drop an outpost seed, build a capital, have a POS, own true sovereignty, you don't need TCUs or SBUs to have sov. Ping ponging is 100% avoidable without timers.
The reason people find these necessary is because they feel entitled to have a POS at every moon, an outpost in every second system, a jump bridge and cyno gen in almost every system, their alliance name displayed on everyone's screens. They want those things even when they don't reside in game anywhere nearby. They want timers so they don't have to be online to protect all that largesse. They want null to resemble high sec as much as possible.
There's no ping pong if you strategically deploy your outposts, POS, strategically recruit a global memberbase, but as Kaalrus once said "why should we have to recruit non-English speakers".
True sov is the systems you can hold with your membership around the clock. Fake sov are the systems the server holds for you with timers when your not even online. Fake sov is one of the main reasons we have aweful blobage and 10% + TiDi.
In my opinion. Ofc, then remove npc null too. What does NPC null have to do with my post. NPC null could function identically to non-NPC null except the arbitrary restrictions in regards to building caps, dropping eggs and so on prevent that. |
Net Malone
Bane Heavy Industries Inver Brass
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 11:05:00 -
[348] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Net Malone wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? You are wrong. Limiting power projection - I understand power is damage in your post - do not make blobs smaller it make blobs BIGGER and fights takes more time. "power is damage"? No, try actually reading the post, then things will make more sense.
So, you want to stir Goons from the inside ? CCP should hire specialists to infiltrate SA and Redit and 4chan and other forums and do out-of-sandbox meta-game in their favour ? :)
Bat what "nerf power projection" actually is ? Some foggy, theoretical description of future course of actions. Nothing substantial.
But actually we all talking about same thing - reducing blocks influence.
CCP needs and (should) want(s) same thing, IMO.
Repeat: nerf "power", influence, control, mastery of few. Right ?
But doing this via nerfing poor players abilities and, actually, core of EvE as it is at the moment isn't a right solution !
We need a way to make players more free and independent form Vader like grip of coalitions. More power to corporations ! Sov favoring presence of corporation members. Non-aliance sov, or just crossroads owned by aliances. Change in minerals - south and north different minerals.
If someone abuse too many let roaming Sansha eat them ! - such NPC regulatory forces can be a part of sandbox - becouse it is bad for Sansha economy ;)
You was proposing putting into code some restrictions how players should breathe.
Work on sov system should be primary focus of CCP. And expansion to the new territories can magically cure many current obstacles - it's only similiar to jumping nerf.
You realy think 50 - 70 jumps is a problem for carrier and dreds blob jumping 1 system per jump ? This do not stop big coalitions from replacing free corps TCUs with their own.
Nerfing will do not change things into better state. Nerfing something on player level will make them MORE helpless vs coalitions. We need more power on low - player, corporation - level. We don't need to change iron grip into adamanite one.
Tip (again): players play to achieve something, to develop something, to explore and to find HOME. They do not want to be helpless vs cruel powers of nature and especially vs more cruel humans. Now you must be plain ratter or plain F1 pusher on kind of photography from disco room... It's not so exciting. You can build a POS, that's all. So much for 'sov mechanic' accesible for every Eve player ;)
Btw. if you even rent a system, you have no rights to mine best moons there, you knew it ? ;) How you want to change this without introducing new systems ? Maybe there is time for that ? if CCP thinks it's technoligically to hard, tell me that. But. pleas, with explanation, OK ?
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1148
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 11:14:00 -
[349] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. Would the CFC have been quite so eager to 100% commit to saving -A-'s system if it meant leaving their northern regions undefended for a week? It's precisely because the stakes are high that there has to be a motivation for very large groups not to commit their entire strength to a single fight. At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this. "Find a way"? What way? Should the opposing sides form up a fleet each and then the GMs lock the system? How else are you going to stop people as motivated as you describe? Describe your system. Because it seems that my proposal DOES give them that motivation, and you're saying "nuh uh, I don't like a real, concrete reason not to dogpile, I want some magical mechanism that doesn't cause any inconvenience or change but is still somehow effective enough to stop them doing what they really really want to"
That is why I think the solution is not Prevent movment. It is to PUNISH excessive commitement at long disanteces? How? A Derivation of your idea.
Make a capital ship able to jump and then it starts a double timmer. A 3 hours one... and a 6 hour one. When the 4 our one finishes. you can jump again. BUt if you do it before the 6 h one finihs. Then the next timers will ahve extra 3 hours on each.
That measn you can try to make a fast deployment. But you will not be able to return fast home to defend. That means excessive power projection comes to a high risk.
OF course the numbers must be compeltely recalcualted, and my proposal is just an example.
Other way is make capital jump drives have malfunction. Each time you jump you have 3% change the jump drive fails and you get strained in system for next 24 hours or until a special action (expensive and cubmersome) is made to make your jump drive repaired. Each time you jump again within 4 hours the fail chance doubles, cumulatively!!! "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Jill Chastot
Oath of the Forsaken Ragnarok.
173
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 11:31:00 -
[350] - Quote
Mah Boobz wrote:I wonder, if CCP hadn't spent all that money on Dust and WOD, and instead, put it into the Eve servers (were the money was made) if we could actually have the fights CCP brag about?
Please stop splerging incorrect blabbering, TiDi is a solution for a single threaded ClusterF*** that is being used at ridiculous extremes that were not envisioned back in the hayday of eves birth. The problem is that eve is old.
Overhauling code is not easy, I dare you to disagree.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unreadOATHS wants you. Come to the WH |
|
Net Malone
Bane Heavy Industries Inver Brass
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 12:13:00 -
[351] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local? Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker. Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV?
It's hard problem but just placing tcu to claim system is not right. You need to live there.
Maybe amount of industry/manufacturing work done in system/constelation could mean something - peace makes time to craft -> industry lvl improves -> you can craft with quality, with gives % of adventage for hulls done there -> better NPC appear -> better bounty.
Then you need to protect your valuable systems.
More dangerous and agressive rats could attack such hi-industry systems/constelations ?
I am pretty sure ability of making better ships (few %) is worth to maintain.
Security status should determine only minerals available. And different minerals should be scattered around the universe.
Your proposition ?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13591
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 13:19:00 -
[352] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Malcanis wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. Would the CFC have been quite so eager to 100% commit to saving -A-'s system if it meant leaving their northern regions undefended for a week? It's precisely because the stakes are high that there has to be a motivation for very large groups not to commit their entire strength to a single fight. At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this. "Find a way"? What way? Should the opposing sides form up a fleet each and then the GMs lock the system? How else are you going to stop people as motivated as you describe? Describe your system. Because it seems that my proposal DOES give them that motivation, and you're saying "nuh uh, I don't like a real, concrete reason not to dogpile, I want some magical mechanism that doesn't cause any inconvenience or change but is still somehow effective enough to stop them doing what they really really want to" That is why I think the solution is not Prevent movment. It is to PUNISH excessive commitement at long disanteces? How? A Derivation of your idea. Make a capital ship able to jump and then it starts a double timmer. A 3 hours one... and a 6 hour one. When the 4 our one finishes. you can jump again. BUt if you do it before the 6 h one finihs. Then the next timers will ahve extra 3 hours on each. That measn you can try to make a fast deployment. But you will not be able to return fast home to defend. That means excessive power projection comes to a high risk. OF course the numbers must be compeltely recalcualted, and my proposal is just an example. Other way is make capital jump drives have malfunction. Each time you jump you have 3% change the jump drive fails and you get strained in system for next 24 hours or until a special action (expensive and cubmersome) is made to make your jump drive repaired. Each time you jump again within 4 hours the fail chance doubles, cumulatively!!!
Those are interesting possible refinements of the basic concept.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 14:13:00 -
[353] - Quote
Net Malone wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? You are wrong. Limiting power projection - I understand power is damage in your post - do not make blobs smaller it make blobs BIGGER and fights takes more time. CCP need to nerf big entities like coalitions not poor player toys. In current state of mechanic entities abuse mid-size player grups making them useless and worthless. Political and economical reasons need to be changed. Bigger universe with different resources on each size. Proper economy need to be enforced via in-sandbox needs. Discover other ancient empire far, far from current one maybe ? But if one entity like CFC is killing game whatever you do - deal with them ! Someone wrote: "We are here to destroy your game !". Let's go for beer with them ? NIPs proof that ppls prefer relative state of peace over conflict. Coalition liders fooled CCP that they (20 - 50 players) are representing whole playerbase. That liders hijacked EvE ! Is CCP such naive ? Best solution is to escalate number of systems. CCP: ask marketing department how they can use that. And sov rules need to be changed - sov OWNERSHIP needs to be divided. Simple solution: eliminate aliance owned sov, all power to CORPORATIONS ! Watch out for abusers - current coalitions. If you just nerf jumping/bridging ability it will slow down moving forces a bit BUT DO NOT DIVIDE THEM ! Nerfing jumping will make a week to roll cap-ball from Period Basis to Branch and effectively control half of the universe. No one would want to build there his own home, becouse once in month it will be cleaned to the dust. So divide coalition and do not make player live worse. Escalating system numbers with sov changes is perfect way.
What exactly would prevent them from using an un-nerfed power projection in it's currently limitless form to just control all that many more system? The coalition was created out of game to gove over some limitation to the alliance system. There is nothing stopping them from doing the very same even if SOV was to be held at a corp level. As long as people can always go from A to B no matter how far A and B are from each tohers, those large fights will happen because there is no logistical bottleneck making it a risky endeavor. They can come back anyway. If the universe was 2 time as big, it would take them more time but they would still do it. They do "nothing" for hours on end in soul crushing lag for the "I was there" feeling. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1492
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 14:32:00 -
[354] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Net Malone wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? You are wrong. Limiting power projection - I understand power is damage in your post - do not make blobs smaller it make blobs BIGGER and fights takes more time. CCP need to nerf big entities like coalitions not poor player toys. In current state of mechanic entities abuse mid-size player grups making them useless and worthless. Political and economical reasons need to be changed. Bigger universe with different resources on each size. Proper economy need to be enforced via in-sandbox needs. Discover other ancient empire far, far from current one maybe ? But if one entity like CFC is killing game whatever you do - deal with them ! Someone wrote: "We are here to destroy your game !". Let's go for beer with them ? NIPs proof that ppls prefer relative state of peace over conflict. Coalition liders fooled CCP that they (20 - 50 players) are representing whole playerbase. That liders hijacked EvE ! Is CCP such naive ? Best solution is to escalate number of systems. CCP: ask marketing department how they can use that. And sov rules need to be changed - sov OWNERSHIP needs to be divided. Simple solution: eliminate aliance owned sov, all power to CORPORATIONS ! Watch out for abusers - current coalitions. If you just nerf jumping/bridging ability it will slow down moving forces a bit BUT DO NOT DIVIDE THEM ! Nerfing jumping will make a week to roll cap-ball from Period Basis to Branch and effectively control half of the universe. No one would want to build there his own home, becouse once in month it will be cleaned to the dust. So divide coalition and do not make player live worse. Escalating system numbers with sov changes is perfect way. What exactly would prevent them from using an un-nerfed power projection in it's currently limitless form to just control all that many more system? The coalition was created out of game to gove over some limitation to the alliance system. There is nothing stopping them from doing the very same even if SOV was to be held at a corp level. As long as people can always go from A to B no matter how far A and B are from each tohers, those large fights will happen because there is no logistical bottleneck making it a risky endeavor. They can come back anyway. If the universe was 2 time as big, it would take them more time but they would still do it. They do "nothing" for hours on end in soul crushing lag for the "I was there" feeling. The question to ask is what drives coalitions to form? In my opinion the answer is fear, convenience and connectivity.
Look at this image - with regional jumps removed and the inability to jump caps between those large regional jumps currently in game you reduce fear, you reduce convenience, and you eliminate connectivity to those far away regions which are currently only a single jump away with long regional jumps.
With such a system Branch, Venal and Tenal then become local political entities instead of Tenal to Period Basis being one contiguous political entity as it is today.
In my opinion of course. |
Doji Okakura
254
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 14:39:00 -
[355] - Quote
You guys know you're playing a computer game, right? |
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1345
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 14:43:00 -
[356] - Quote
Doji Okakura wrote:You guys know you're playing a computer game, right?
Uhuh and we like doing that for the next decade and onwards, which means some things have to change and not 2 years from now. |
Ivana Twinkle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 16:16:00 -
[357] - Quote
Doji Okakura wrote:You guys know you're playing a computer game, right?
They are too busy fulling all their proverbial buckets with old teared up memes to notice. |
Net Malone
Bane Heavy Industries Inver Brass
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 17:52:00 -
[358] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:[
What exactly would prevent them from using an un-nerfed power projection in it's currently limitless form to just control all that many more system? The coalition was created out of game to gove over some limitation to the alliance system.
It's very simple - "they", parties involved in blobs, will loose numbers. That will limit coalitions influence. Actually it's coalitions pressure...
Now half of the coalitions member have no way to go. Actual wars are forced to being their "own" wars.
How I know that ? Becouse coalitions are not monolitic - look what happens when cascading is starting: "some" members evacuate. If we have free space to explore then not core corps/aliances will go there. Same as with WH space. They will go and create new corps, new aliances and new coalitions but smaller this time. Ppls will scatter, capitals will scatter and blobs will get smaller.
Sov change is needed to prevent new territoris from being afk-collected (and prevented from habitating) by old coalitions. Here is nerf you want. Or you arguing that current sov mechanic is... OK ? Capitals, oh yes, capitals ! need ! to ! be ! changed !!! ;)
At the moment creation of new aliances senseless - there is no point in that becouse there is nothing new parties can achieve. New parties are insta-borged into current entities. THAT is what require a change.
Quote: There is nothing stopping them from doing the very same even if SOV was to be held at a corp level.
That's not true. Corporations living long, long from conflict zone will ignore not-their conflicts.
Quote: As long as people can always go from A to B no matter how far A and B are from each tohers, those large fights will happen because there is no logistical bottleneck making it a risky endeavor. They can come back anyway. If the universe was 2 time as big, it would take them more time but they would still do it.
Excuse me, but you arguing against yourself.
"Endeavor" part grows as range grow. And probability of such massive "comeback" trip falls (with range too). More, it is quite impossible that all forces will be back on some not-anymore-important-for-us timer. You see, you fly to timers to your enemies - usually to your neightbours ;) If that relationship is changed there is no reason to be "back anyway".
And more power on corporation level prevents creating gigantic coalitions, like 3 per whole Universe...
Space is very effective in dividing ppls :) Even mariages brakes thanks to different space and time. Some time in isolation and there will be no reason to join current coalitions.
[quote} They do "nothing" for hours on end in soul crushing lag for the "I was there" feeling.[/quote]
Ah, so Saturday "event" didn't create some negative emotions and some new topics on the forums ? Everybody was happy with engagement results ? Not counting titan pilots, they are alway primared... Maybe check some Eve forum, you will find walls of text with easy...
|
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 18:28:00 -
[359] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local? Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker. Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV? Before timers, POS, deployable structures there was a pure presence based system. It basically worked like this: (Based on Stain Alliance) SA claimed the Stain region as their area. SA members lived in Stain. If a non-SA came into Stain people formed up fleets and chased them off or killed them. In this way SA was a presence based alliance. Extremely complex I know. In comparison what we have now is non-presence real estate based alliance system. My favourite example is Period Basis and Tribal Band / Goonswarm. Fountain and Delve were held by Test. Period Basis by Tribal. When Test abandoned Delve, Tribal felt so threatened they abandoned PB. However even though no Tribal presence remained in PB, PB still belonged to Tribal. Tribal not willing to fight Goons sold the entire region including outposts to Lawns, Lawns joined Goons transferring PB to Goons. This all happened despite Tribal, Lawns and Goons not having a physical presence in that region. The people who remained in PB, I was one of them, could have banded together and attempted to killed any Goons, Tribal or Lawns who entered (presence based control) but that would not have changed the outcome. There were only around 100 people, any attempt to prevent would have been squashed by timer blocking and cap projection from Goons 100s of jumps away. The irony of the current situation is that all this sov crap exists purely so someone can have pretty colors on a map and claim areas they don't use. Having read all of your posts, I think I finally get it. You hate goons. For the convenience of the rest of us, who may or may not have a similar desire for vengeance against the goons, could you please start a "I hate Goons" thread? As for your suggestion here. If you simply want the old "hisec station docking games in nullsec" version of the game, it still exists. It's called NPC nullsec. Go there and stay. Your problems are solved. Personally I would like to see a plan that will allow the players to actually play the game. Not one that will control system resources by preventing them from playing.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1500
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 18:59:00 -
[360] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. So the SOV should be decided by what? Presence in system? Activity? Amount of trash talk in Local? Presence won't work unless you like the idea of SOV being held by AFK cloaker. Activity would have to include some amount of PvE because you can't get all of your activity from PvP because the other side could just deny you endlessly making your SOV drop after some time because there is no activity. Are null player willing to need to do some form of PvE to hole SOV? Before timers, POS, deployable structures there was a pure presence based system. It basically worked like this: (Based on Stain Alliance) SA claimed the Stain region as their area. SA members lived in Stain. If a non-SA came into Stain people formed up fleets and chased them off or killed them. In this way SA was a presence based alliance. Extremely complex I know. In comparison what we have now is non-presence real estate based alliance system. My favourite example is Period Basis and Tribal Band / Goonswarm. Fountain and Delve were held by Test. Period Basis by Tribal. When Test abandoned Delve, Tribal felt so threatened they abandoned PB. However even though no Tribal presence remained in PB, PB still belonged to Tribal. Tribal not willing to fight Goons sold the entire region including outposts to Lawns, Lawns joined Goons transferring PB to Goons. This all happened despite Tribal, Lawns and Goons not having a physical presence in that region. The people who remained in PB, I was one of them, could have banded together and attempted to killed any Goons, Tribal or Lawns who entered (presence based control) but that would not have changed the outcome. There were only around 100 people, any attempt to prevent would have been squashed by timer blocking and cap projection from Goons 100s of jumps away. The irony of the current situation is that all this sov crap exists purely so someone can have pretty colors on a map and claim areas they don't use. Having read all of your posts, I think I finally get it. You hate goons. For the convenience of the rest of us, who may or may not have a similar desire for vengeance against the goons, could you please start a "I hate Goons" thread? As for your suggestion here. If you simply want the old "hisec station docking games in nullsec" version of the game, it still exists. It's called NPC nullsec. Go there and stay. Your problems are solved. Personally I would like to see a plan that will allow the players to actually play the game. Not one that will control system resources by preventing them from playing. Nah I have no particular issue with Goons. I spend a lot of time in their space and they're surprisingly decent comparatively.
The reason I use CFC as an example is because they are the largest bloc and I'm very familiar with the areas they have claimed. The reason I used the PB example is because it showed how a completely absent alliance managed to obtain complete sovereignty over Period Basis including all it's outposts.
It's a fail system because Tribal fleeing should rightly have created a vacuum somebody else could have filled, increasing the number of entities but all that happened was a bunch Goon blockade runners dropped TCUs enmasse and then left. There wasn't a Goon in sight. But anyone trying to contest, an automated email would have alerted them, 24 hours later from far far away the Goons would have arrived, crushed them and then left again. It's stupid.
|
|
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
966
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:44:00 -
[361] - Quote
Net Malone wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:[
What exactly would prevent them from using an un-nerfed power projection in it's currently limitless form to just control all that many more system? The coalition was created out of game to gove over some limitation to the alliance system.
It's very simple - "they", parties involved in blobs, will loose numbers. That will limit coalitions influence. Actually it's coalitions pressure... Now half of the coalitions member have no way to go. Actual wars are forced to being their "own" wars. How I know that ? Becouse coalitions are not monolitic - look what happens when cascading is starting: "some" members evacuate. If we have free space to explore then not core corps/aliances will go there. Same as with WH space. They will go and create new corps, new aliances and new coalitions but smaller this time. Ppls will scatter, capitals will scatter and blobs will get smaller. Sov change is needed to prevent new territoris from being afk-collected (and prevented from habitating) by old coalitions. Here is nerf you want. Or you arguing that current sov mechanic is... OK ? Capitals, oh yes, capitals ! need ! to ! be ! changed !!! ;) At the moment creation of new aliances senseless - there is no point in that becouse there is nothing new parties can achieve. New parties are insta-borged into current entities. THAT is what require a change. Quote: There is nothing stopping them from doing the very same even if SOV was to be held at a corp level.
That's not true. Corporations living long, long from conflict zone will ignore not-their conflicts. Quote: As long as people can always go from A to B no matter how far A and B are from each tohers, those large fights will happen because there is no logistical bottleneck making it a risky endeavor. They can come back anyway. If the universe was 2 time as big, it would take them more time but they would still do it.
Excuse me, but you arguing against yourself. "Endeavor" part grows as range grow. And probability of such massive "comeback" trip falls (with range too). More, it is quite impossible that all forces will be back on some not-anymore-important-for-us timer. You see, you fly to timers to your enemies - usually to your neightbours ;) If that relationship is changed there is no reason to be "back anyway". And more power on corporation level prevents creating gigantic coalitions, like 3 per whole Universe... Space is very effective in dividing ppls :) Even mariages brakes thanks to different space and time. Some time in isolation and there will be no reason to join current coalitions. [quote} They do "nothing" for hours on end in soul crushing lag for the "I was there" feeling.
Ah, so Saturday "event" didn't create some negative emotions and some new topics on the forums ? Everybody was happy with engagement results ? Not counting titan pilots, they are alway primared... Maybe check some Eve forum, you will find walls of text with easy... [/quote]
Your whole prediction is based on the idea that people won't regroup thier new SOV holding corporatin into alliance/coalition in the same they do now. Why would they not do it? Creating more space won't prevent them from doing it. If Goonswarm Federation cares about the war Black Legion is fighting, what makes you think Goonwaffe won't care about Origin.'s war? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9905
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 19:56:00 -
[362] - Quote
Just to point out, there was a time when corps and alliances were not able to blue eachother. CCP added the ability to add blue and red standing because we were forming coalitions.
So any call to make corps the sov holders and to abolish alliances and blues will not work. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1500
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:36:00 -
[363] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Just to point out, there was a time when corps and alliances were not able to blue eachother. CCP added the ability to add blue and red standing because we were forming coalitions.
So any call to make corps the sov holders and to abolish alliances and blues will not work. Which was arguably a bad idea. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3416
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 21:44:00 -
[364] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
I have a very serious question:
How exactly do you limit the movement of players throughout space without seriously undermining the current game.
For example: I like small gang warfare, and routinely roam about nullsec looking for fights. This currently involves 20-system trips around Syndicate looking for other gangs to fight many fleet types (frigates to BS's with triage support). This involves 40-system trips through Sov-space, often in frigate & cruiser hulls. Either you changes limit this game-style to be non existent, or an entity like the CFC can use that same fleet comp to move from VFK to highsec, refuel, move to Berta, Refuel, and move to HED-GP. The only thing that changes is they now need two fleets of ships (one in VFK for home defense as insurance, and one in their forward staging base to Blob VFK). Now, supercaps would be inhibited, as pilots are stuck to the ship, but capital pilots just need two dreads/carriers (one in VFK, one in the FOP) to provide the same damage projection they do today.
What I'm trying to get at, is that moving around the universe by standard gate travel is quick and easy in the games current environment, and unless you somehow make it impractical for gatetravel to move from VFK to Jita within a day (28 systems), then large coalitions can ALWAYS move back and forward between opposite sides of the map to defend their Sov.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1500
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:05:00 -
[365] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
I have a very serious question: How exactly do you limit the movement of players throughout space without seriously undermining the current game. For example: I like small gang warfare, and routinely roam about nullsec looking for fights. This currently involves 20-system trips around Syndicate looking for other gangs to fight many fleet types (frigates to BS's with triage support). This involves 40-system trips through Sov-space, often in frigate & cruiser hulls. Either you changes limit this game-style to be non existent, or an entity like the CFC can use that same fleet comp to move from VFK to highsec, refuel, move to Berta, Refuel, and move to HED-GP. The only thing that changes is they now need two fleets of ships (one in VFK for home defense as insurance, and one in their forward staging base to Blob VFK). Now, supercaps would be inhibited, as pilots are stuck to the ship, but capital pilots just need two dreads/carriers (one in VFK, one in the FOP) to provide the same damage projection they do today. What I'm trying to get at, is that moving around the universe by standard gate travel is quick and easy in the games current environment, and unless you somehow make it impractical for gatetravel to move from VFK to Jita within a day (28 systems), then large coalitions can ALWAYS move back and forward between opposite sides of the map to defend their Sov. From UJY-HE in Deklein to Y-1918 in Branch its 1 jump. Without those regional jumps its 60 jumps through low and NPC Venal.
From HB-5L3 in Cobalt Edge to SF-XJS in Tenal its 1 jump, without regional bridges its something like 100 through multiple low, npc space, and non friendly null.
That's a huge difference. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:20:00 -
[366] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: From UJY-HE in Deklein to Y-1918 in Branch its 1 jump. Without those regional jumps its 60 jumps through low and NPC Venal.
From HB-5L3 in Cobalt Edge to SF-XJS in Tenal its 1 jump, without regional bridges its something like 100 through multiple low, npc space, and non friendly null.
That's a huge difference.
So you are suggesting limiting/removing the cross-regional gates?
So you could travel Lonetrek -> Pureblind -> Fade -> Deklein and Lonetreck -> Tribute -> Venal -> Branch, but you couldn't travel Fade to Branch or Deklein to Venal, thereby dramatically increasing the efforts to move to the outer ring of nullsec?
This could be interesting. Although it also means that an invasion into Branch would have penetrate Tribute first, thereby making any Coalition that owns Tribute and Branch only have to defend Tribute to secure all that space. Again, then as long as the majority of combat pilots can fly from their FOB to the Tribute Staging system in a timely fashion, they can go fight where-ever they want.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1500
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:39:00 -
[367] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: From UJY-HE in Deklein to Y-1918 in Branch its 1 jump. Without those regional jumps its 60 jumps through low and NPC Venal.
From HB-5L3 in Cobalt Edge to SF-XJS in Tenal its 1 jump, without regional bridges its something like 100 through multiple low, npc space, and non friendly null.
That's a huge difference.
So you are suggesting limiting/removing the cross-regional gates? So you could travel Lonetrek -> Pureblind -> Fade -> Deklein and Lonetreck -> Tribute -> Venal -> Branch, but you couldn't travel Fade to Branch or Deklein to Venal, thereby dramatically increasing the efforts to move to the outer ring of nullsec? This could be interesting. Although it also means that an invasion into Branch would have penetrate Tribute first, thereby making any Coalition that owns Tribute and Branch only have to defend Tribute to secure all that space. Again, then as long as the majority of combat pilots can fly from their FOB to the Tribute Staging system in a timely fashion, they can go fight where-ever they want. Yeah. I'm not suggesting it would solve the coalition problem but I think it would help reduce the sizes of coalitions. Why would you form a coalition with someone 60 jumps away. You would likely tend to form them with close neighbors instead. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8683
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:41:00 -
[368] - Quote
You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. My EVE Videos |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3417
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:44:00 -
[369] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that.
I realize this, and think it adds a unique landscape to nullsec when subcaps can make the movement but capitals cant!
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1500
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 22:45:00 -
[370] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. Yeah I do but you guys do pretty well with subcaps. If Failcon decided they didn't like you anymore or you decied you wanted new puppets in Branch you could easily squish them with the regional bridges. Which is a very good incentive for Failcon to stay in your coalition.
Without those regional bridges they could tell you to go feck yourself with some decent safety :) |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
339
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 23:32:00 -
[371] - Quote
So basically it's being suggested that capitals become Region Locked (or rather just their jump drives? isn't that the same thing)
Or something similar to that.
Not really sure if it's a good idea or bad tbh - just trying to get to the gist of it.
(if you're suggesting a universal padlock for gates that could stop ANYBODY -- that's a terrible idea) |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1500
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 23:45:00 -
[372] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:So basically it's being suggested that capitals become Region Locked (or rather just their jump drives? isn't that the same thing)
Or something similar to that.
Not really sure if it's a good idea or bad tbh - just trying to get to the gist of it.
(if you're suggesting a universal padlock for gates that could stop ANYBODY -- that's a terrible idea) No they wouldn't be region locked. Personally I liked the game when the regional gates were very rare. I think they added tons more of them to ease the problem with chokes. Only one I remember from eve release was HED-GP and the PB - PS one but I'm sure there were a couple more.
And nah a padlock for gates, just for regional gates based on sov or just get rid of them altogether. Like I said it'd not a solution to everything, and might not even be a solution to anything just a thought :) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8686
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 23:58:00 -
[373] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. Yeah I do but you guys do pretty well with subcaps. If Failcon decided they didn't like you anymore or you decied you wanted new puppets in Branch you could easily squish them with the regional bridges. Which is a very good incentive for Failcon to stay in your coalition. Without those regional bridges they could tell you to go feck yourself with some decent safety :) Who the **** is Failcon? Do you mean FCon? What does this have to do with the Tenal-CE jump? My EVE Videos |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4403
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 00:02:00 -
[374] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:baltec1 wrote:Just to point out, there was a time when corps and alliances were not able to blue eachother. CCP added the ability to add blue and red standing because we were forming coalitions.
So any call to make corps the sov holders and to abolish alliances and blues will not work. Which was arguably a bad idea.
Unironically the only people complaining about standings are the ones with social skills so poor that making friends isn't a viable option. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2046
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 00:12:00 -
[375] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that.
Maybe, but it is simply a matter of a coder changing one value on a database and suddenly it is in range. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 01:31:00 -
[376] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. Maybe, but it is simply a matter of a coder changing one value on a database and suddenly it is in range.
And changing a single value in the code would also mean concord never intervene in high sec. A single variable change in the database can make civilian gatling gun do more dps than a sieged moros combined with more alpha than a doomsday on subcap.
See, we can all make stupid statement about how something is just "one single variable away from happening". |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8687
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 01:34:00 -
[377] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. Maybe, but it is simply a matter of a coder changing one value on a database and suddenly it is in range. Why would they do that, though? I'm not sure it's quite so simple as that, either. My EVE Videos |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2046
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 03:11:00 -
[378] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. Maybe, but it is simply a matter of a coder changing one value on a database and suddenly it is in range. Why would they do that, though? I'm not sure it's quite so simple as that, either.
Well, on a technical level, I strongly doubt they would hardcode the distance between regions/systems into multiple lines of code. That would break so many rules of coding, I just can't see it happening.
Now, on how it changes the game, that is a non-trivial issue. But if the concept of altering the capabilities of power projection is being discussed, that in and of itself is non-trivial, so yeah, I think messing with the ranges between regions / systems is certainly a valid discussion. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
943
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 03:29:00 -
[379] - Quote
Lack of CCP interaction with this thread is telling. This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
308
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 04:04:00 -
[380] - Quote
They have been keeping pretty hush hush on anything related to HED-GP so far. Don't blame them though, with the reaction they would receive. |
|
Molenius Morrowinger
M - Intergalactics Inq.
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 04:42:00 -
[381] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:They have been keeping pretty hush hush on anything related to HED-GP so far. Don't blame them though, with the reaction they would receive.
The post that they are looking for the solution would suffice. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
309
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 05:02:00 -
[382] - Quote
*****, I'll cut you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8688
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 06:55:00 -
[383] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. Maybe, but it is simply a matter of a coder changing one value on a database and suddenly it is in range. Why would they do that, though? I'm not sure it's quite so simple as that, either. Well, on a technical level, I strongly doubt they would hardcode the distance between regions/systems into multiple lines of code. That would break so many rules of coding, I just can't see it happening. I doubt they hardcode the distance at all. The systems are probably given positional entries in 3-dimensional coordinates and the distance is calculated afterward. You can't just move HB- closer to SF- as that would make it too distant from its neighboring systems in that constellation. You can't just move the constellation since that would make it too distant from its neighboring constellations in Cobalt Edge. You'd actually have to move a whole lot of systems in order to make this work smoothly.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Now, on how it changes the game, that is a non-trivial issue. But if the concept of altering the capabilities of power projection is being discussed, that in and of itself is non-trivial, so yeah, I think messing with the ranges between regions / systems is certainly a valid discussion. Sure, but why make it shorter? My EVE Videos |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1504
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 07:03:00 -
[384] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize HB- to SF- is actually too far for capitals to jump. There are many other jumps like that. Yeah I do but you guys do pretty well with subcaps. If Failcon decided they didn't like you anymore or you decied you wanted new puppets in Branch you could easily squish them with the regional bridges. Which is a very good incentive for Failcon to stay in your coalition. Without those regional bridges they could tell you to go feck yourself with some decent safety :) Who the **** is Failcon? Do you mean FCon? What does this have to do with the Tenal-CE jump? I used FCon as an example because CFC have no allies over in HB. I'm explaining how the jumps encourage members of your coalition to join and prevent them from leaving if they wanted to.
|
Jeff Rubikon
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 09:26:00 -
[385] - Quote
i admit this sucks it took me 4 hours of attempting to login only to get the message proxy usurper something so i logged off and when to bed i understand that the node was maxed out but why not implement a system such as jita and move people to a different system hahah whom am i kidding lol |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm. JIHADASQUAD
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:12:00 -
[386] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:said it once, will say again:
the root cause is that the sov system rewards blobbing in the form of timers and timing windows.
come up with a system that gets rid of the timing window aspect, and the blobbing will take a sharp downturn. Timers don't cause blobbing, its the huge amounts of HP.
Can marauders get 3x bomb launcher slots yet? Smash the blobs and drones off the field through brute strength LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Zulu Death Mask
Yaxchilan
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:15:00 -
[387] - Quote
I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening.
|
Prince Kobol
1365
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 10:54:00 -
[388] - Quote
Zulu Death Mask wrote:I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening.
What exactly do you want CCP to say?
Apart from the numerous tweets during the fight regarding server performance, the many dev blogs over the years describing how TiDi works, the technical details of the servers and how they are configured, what work they are currently doing in regards to reducing lag and improving TiDi for the future, and a number of presentations during fanfest each year.
Seriously, what more can CCP say that already hasn't been said?
The only thing they could say is that it was a bad decision to try and bridge in 700 dreads on a node that already had approx 2500 guys fighting it out, a plague of drones, a mass of bubbles and server already maxed at 10% TiDi.
It was a great achievement by CCP that the server did not crash, unless of course you know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company?
Didn't think so |
Zulu Death Mask
Yaxchilan
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:15:00 -
[389] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Zulu Death Mask wrote:I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening.
What exactly do you want CCP to say? Apart from the numerous tweets during the fight regarding server performance, the many dev blogs over the years describing how TiDi works, the technical details of the servers and how they are configured, what work they are currently doing in regards to reducing lag and improving TiDi for the future, and a number of presentations during fanfest each year. Seriously, what more can CCP say that already hasn't been said? The only thing they could say is that it was a bad decision to try and bridge in 700 dreads on a node that already had approx 2500 guys fighting it out, a plague of drones, a mass of bubbles and server already maxed at 10% TiDi. It was a great achievement by CCP that the server did not crash, unless of course you know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company? Didn't think so
So you don't think they should communicate with their playerbase after an event like HED? Half the populace couldn't do ****, the other had a turkey shoot. Apart from the mentally challenged sheep, players from both side can see and have said how utter crap the system is. |
Prince Kobol
1366
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:17:00 -
[390] - Quote
Zulu Death Mask wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Zulu Death Mask wrote:I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening.
What exactly do you want CCP to say? Apart from the numerous tweets during the fight regarding server performance, the many dev blogs over the years describing how TiDi works, the technical details of the servers and how they are configured, what work they are currently doing in regards to reducing lag and improving TiDi for the future, and a number of presentations during fanfest each year. Seriously, what more can CCP say that already hasn't been said? The only thing they could say is that it was a bad decision to try and bridge in 700 dreads on a node that already had approx 2500 guys fighting it out, a plague of drones, a mass of bubbles and server already maxed at 10% TiDi. It was a great achievement by CCP that the server did not crash, unless of course you know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company? Didn't think so So you don't think they should communicate with their playerbase after an event like HED?
Again I will ask you the same question, what exactly do you want CCP to say?
Arh you edited your post with
Zulu Death Mask wrote:So you don't think they should communicate with their playerbase after an event like HED? Half the populace couldn't do ****, the other had a turkey shoot. Apart from the mentally challenged sheep, players from both side can see and have said how utter crap the system is
Well lets see, until the point of where somebody thought it would be a great idea to bridge in 700 dreads on a node that already had approx 2500 guys fighting it out, a plague of drones, a mass of bubbles and server already maxed at 10% TiDi, pretty sure most people would say whilst not great, nothing unexpected was happening.
We all know, have know for a long time that when you have this many people in system the node struggles, it is not a big surprise.
Now instead of raging how about you answer the question I asked you before, here it is again.
"You know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company"
Waiting for that answer |
|
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
17
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:22:00 -
[391] - Quote
Correct me if im wrong, but shouldnt we also be looking into mass bans after this fight for the missuse of a well known exploit/bug?
|
Zulu Death Mask
Yaxchilan
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:27:00 -
[392] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote: "You know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company"
No. However they can change game mechanics to avoid having the first coalition that bloats the system with numbers to win the fight. Goons used to do it, now N3/PL. It isn't fun.
As for what they should say, are you kidding me? What do you think people want?... they want a solution to the sov system. CCP has mentioned they are working on it... however they have people developing useless features when the most important feature that drives the history of eve is not working properly.
Do you think the current sov system is ok? |
Prince Kobol
1367
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:34:00 -
[393] - Quote
Zulu Death Mask wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: "You know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company"
No. However they can change game mechanics to avoid having the first coalition that bloats the system with numbers to win the fight. Goons used to do it, now N3/PL. It isn't fun. As for what they should say, are you kidding me? What do you think people want?... they want a solution to the sov system. CCP has mentioned they are working on it... however they have people developing useless features when the most important feature that drives the history of eve is not working properly. Do you think the current sov system is ok?
No.. what a surprise.
So to begin with you are complaining that we can have fights in Eve that you cant have anywhere else.. well done.
Next.. Sov Mechanics, yes people have been asking for this to be changed for years now, the difference is those people are not asking because they did something stupid and are now posting thread after thread full of tears.
People have been asking CCP to change Sov, some people have come up with some fantastic idea's over the years, but those people do so because they love Eve and could see where it was going, you and others in the past few days are only saying it now because you are butt hurt over 1 fight.
You see, you are one of the many reasons why developers do not state implicitly what they are working on and give a time frame for completion because if at any point they stop development for what ever reason, or change direction or are unable to keep to that time frame you would be the first one to jump up and down screaming that its unacceptable.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1505
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:54:00 -
[394] - Quote
Baltec you can pretend that timers are fine and EHP is an issue but that's simply not true. With what you had for HED you might well have beat PL/N3, you at least would have done some serious damage. With timers being so predictable the winner is the group that clogs the system first. The only possible win for you was to leave.
Timers however are only a symptom. The disease is the feeling of entitlement that people have to massive amounts of null without the people to defend the space around the clock.
Ping pong only becomes an issue when the numbers of systems held are more than the number of systems able to be defended based on low population numbers. It makes no sense for people to feel entitled to 1000 systems when at low population times they're only able to defend 300.
It makes no sense for the games sov warfare to effectively shut down for 8 hours purely for the benefit of the US players. It's a single sharded globally shared game and as such sov holding entities should reflect that.
Timers are a failed terrible system. Invulnerability is unrealistic magic WoW crap and the excuse you can't get anyone to defend when your not online makes zero sense when there are obviously people online at those times to attack. |
Zulu Death Mask
Yaxchilan
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:57:00 -
[395] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote: No.. what a surprise.
So to begin with you are complaining that we can have fights in Eve that you cant have anywhere else.. well done.
Next.. Sov Mechanics, yes people have been asking for this to be changed for years now, the difference is those people are not asking because they did something stupid and are now posting thread after thread full of tears.
People have been asking CCP to change Sov, some people have come up with some fantastic idea's over the years, but those people do so because they love Eve and could see where it was going, you and others in the past few days are only saying it now because you are butt hurt over 1 fight.
You see, you are one of the many reasons why developers do not state implicitly what they are working on and give a time frame for completion because if at any point they stop development for what ever reason, or change direction or are unable to keep to that time frame you would be the first one to jump up and down screaming that its unacceptable.
First of all jump off the internet band-waggon that claims sarcasm makes you seem more intelligent. Done? good... please proceed with a tad more respect.
I wasn't complaining about the battles we can have (you really have a talent in twisting words), I was complaining about the mechanics that are in place that force people to have to fight battles like HED.
Of course people knew about the sov problems and happenings like HED are obvious reminders of the problems. That's why people are talking about it. It's quite a logical thing that happens everyday in society. Why are you surprised?
I'm not butt-hurt (I wasn't even involved) neither am I jumping up and down screaming.... so please stop assuming that everyone who talks about the problems is a goon.
EvE is still the best game out there... it's just a shame CCP has their priorities all messed up. Years of talking about sov problems and still there hasn't been a single change. |
Prince Kobol
1368
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 11:59:00 -
[396] - Quote
Zulu Death Mask wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: "You know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company"
No. However they can change game mechanics to avoid having the first coalition that bloats the system with numbers to win the fight. Goons used to do it, now N3/PL. It isn't fun. As for what they should say, are you kidding me? What do you think people want?... they want a solution to the sov system. CCP has mentioned they are working on it... however they have people developing useless features when the most important feature that drives the history of eve is not working properly. Do you think the current sov system is ok?
First off I will apologise for my sarcasm. Its just when I see somebody huffing and puffing it brings out the worse in me.
Let look at the problem another way,
To fix this problem there are say 3 main problems, 1 is from a technical standpoint, the other is one of perception and of course cost.
The technical problems are numerous. CCP will never be able to have the infrastructure in place to allow unlimited amount of people fighting with zero lag, it will never happen and that is understandable.
Now you can say x number of people should be able to fight without lag but that we as players will always exceed that number so you need to find a balance, which again is very difficult to do.
What might be acceptable to you will not be acceptable to the next person and so on, where do CCP draw the line?
You have to remember that CCP is also a business so they have to decide what is acceptable from a a cost point of view. It is prudent to spend millions of dollars / euro's / pounds on something which only effects a small percentage of the games population on something which only might happen a handful of times a year?
Then you have perception. People like the idea that having these large battles are possible, its a important selling point of Eve. Many people play to have these large scale fights, s do you want to change the mechanics so that the opportunity large battles will lessen, but less frequent. almost myth in status?
Do you want the mechanics changed in such a way that there is no reason to have these large battles?
As I mentioned before you have the issue of cost. To improve the infrastructure will cost money.. a lot of money. CCP is a business so they need to decide if devoting that kind of financial resource will result in more subscribers. Will they see a return in that investment?
CCP are in a very difficult position where they do not want to change the mechanics to such a point where there are so few opportunities for these large fights to occur that it becomes once in a blue moon event, they do not want to change the mechanics to such a point where all these people who have invested years to have characters who can fly supers / titans become next to useless.
Yes believe and have stated for a long time now that Sov Mechanics need a complete overhaul, I have been saying this for years now, however I also understand the huge complexities of changing this from a technical standpoint, from a perception standpoint, from the standpoint of we do not want to **** off thousands of players who pay us (CCP) a lot of money.
It is a very complex problem, one of which I do not believe CCP have the answer and one that they are struggling with. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1505
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:10:00 -
[397] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Zulu Death Mask wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: "You know of any other game that can have this many people blowing the crap out of each with zero lag or some magical piece of technology that will allow a unlimited amount of players to fight with no lag and that will keep CCP as a profitable company"
No. However they can change game mechanics to avoid having the first coalition that bloats the system with numbers to win the fight. Goons used to do it, now N3/PL. It isn't fun. As for what they should say, are you kidding me? What do you think people want?... they want a solution to the sov system. CCP has mentioned they are working on it... however they have people developing useless features when the most important feature that drives the history of eve is not working properly. Do you think the current sov system is ok? First off I will apologise for my sarcasm. Its just when I see somebody huffing and puffing it brings out the worse in me. Let look at the problem another way, To fix this problem there are say 3 main problems, 1 is from a technical standpoint, the other is one of perception and of course cost. The technical problems are numerous. CCP will never be able to have the infrastructure in place to allow unlimited amount of people fighting with zero lag, it will never happen and that is understandable. Now you can say x number of people should be able to fight without lag but that we as players will always exceed that number so you need to find a balance, which again is very difficult to do. What might be acceptable you will not be acceptable to the next person and so on. You have to remember that CCP is also a business so they have to decide what is acceptable from a a cost point of view. It is prudent to spend millions of dollars / euro's / pounds on something which only effects a small percentage of the games population on something which only might happen a handful of times a year? Then you have perception. People like the idea that having these large battles are possible, its a important selling point of Eve. Many people play to have these large scale fights, s do you want to change the mechanics so that the opportunity large battles will lessen, but less frequent. almost myth in status? Do you want the mechanics changed in such a way that there is no reason to have these large battles? As I mentioned before you have the issue of cost. To improve the infrastructure will cost money.. a lot of money. CCP is a business so they need to decide if devoting that kind of financial resource will result in more subscribers. Will they see a return in that investment? CCP are in a very difficult position where they do not want to change the mechanics to such a point where there are so few opportunities for these large fights to occur that it becomes once in a blue moon event, they do not want to change the mechanics to such a point where all these people who have invested years to have characters who can fly supers / titans become next to useless. Yes believe and have stated for a long time now that Sov Mechanics need a complete overhaul, I have been saying this for years now, however I also understand the huge complexities of changing this from a technical standpoint, from a perception standpoint, from the standpoint of we do not want to **** off thousands of players who pay a lot money. It is a very complex problem, one of which I do not believe CCP have the answer and one that they are struggling with. Fights such as HED and 6V are already very rare. They're likely to be rarer as this happens more often.
From a business perspective it is foolish to leave things as they are unless they have some sort of imminent fix which they do not. From a player perspective I imagine nobody joins EvE for fights like HED.
A 1000 vs 1000 where you're not incessantly crashing, freezing, stuck in warp will always be better than HED was. Especially if they happen more frequently. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
230
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:31:00 -
[398] - Quote
I think everyone can agree that the currect sov system is terrible,and needs to be reworked.
I personally favour some kind of system based on activity, and also based on current FW mechanics. I also think the truesec satus of nullsec space should change over time, to encourage alliances to move and conquer new space as their old space becomes less valuable.
I beliee that unless CCP comes up with a cast-iron commitment and timetable for a null-sec rework very soon, we are going to see a steady decline in subs, indeed this looks like it's already happening. Don't Panic.
|
Ptraci
3 R Corporation Boarderline Cartel
1704
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:48:00 -
[399] - Quote
trader joes Ichinumi wrote:The only realistic solution is to create incentives for attacking multiple systems at once so this doesn't happen, but that would take a lot of work.
I suggested that and got laughed out of F&I because, you know, it would "break EVE". People say they want change, and then they complain when change is suggested. So how about y'all play the game CCP feels like giving you and if you don't like it, there's always candy crush. |
Prince Kobol
1369
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:52:00 -
[400] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Fights such as HED and 6V are already very rare. They're likely to be rarer as this happens more often.
From a business perspective it is foolish to leave things as they are unless they have some sort of imminent fix which they do not. From a player perspective I imagine nobody joins EvE for fights like HED.
A 1000 vs 1000 where you're not incessantly crashing, freezing, stuck in warp will always be better than HED was. Especially if they happen more frequently.
They may be rare but they are a big source of lets say advertisement for Eve. They have a pull that one day you might be in a fight this large and there is no other game where this can happen.
It is not foolish at all. As I have already stated, do they invest what would amount to millions of dollars / euros / pounds in either a complete rewrite of the code to take advantage of all the new technologies and advancements that were not available when Eve was originally written or invest in more hardware for what amounts to a small percentage of the player base for events which admittedly happen rarely but generate more news then anything else.
For CCP to invest this much more, time and resource then other parts of the game will suffer, its inevitable.
So what do you do, neglected all the other aspects of Eve whilst trying to fix what is a very contentious issue with no guarantees that in a few months time we as players will be complaining again because we will just dog pile even more people?
As for 1000 v 1000, yes TiDi will kick in but to say it is completely unplayable is false.
I know as I have been in many fights of this size over the last few months and whilst it is frustrating, it is not unplayable and it is a price I am willing to pay to be able to have fights of this size and complexity.
|
|
Clay Coulter
Infernal Refuge Ded End Conglomerates
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:56:00 -
[401] - Quote
Man i thought miners get but hurt.
*starts to summon the devs so they can fix sov*
Sounds like everyone needs to just chill out. Until it is fix, do the logical thing and dont use as many people per battle!
I even remember there being a way to contact CCP about a massive battle that was coming up have you guys tried that?
Anyway I think i am going to go back to watching now ;) |
Prince Kobol
1369
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 12:58:00 -
[402] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:I think everyone can agree that the currect sov system is terrible,and needs to be reworked.
I personally favour some kind of system based on activity, and also based on current FW mechanics. I also think the truesec satus of nullsec space should change over time, to encourage alliances to move and conquer new space as their old space becomes less valuable.
I beliee that unless CCP comes up with a cast-iron commitment and timetable for a null-sec rework very soon, we are going to see a steady decline in subs, indeed this looks like it's already happening.
I like the idea of having FW system complexes but I wouldn't just eliminate structures. I would tie them in and give each Sov system a rating like FW system.
The rating would effect the amount of Shield , Armour and HP each structure has.
So if the enemy force run the those complex's the result will be a big reduction of the amount of overall HP any structures have making it easier to grind them down.
As for subs, they have been on a downward trend for most of the year but I do not place the sole blame on Sov Mechanics. I put it more down to the last 2 expansions have being somewhat a let down and a general unhappiness that CCP appear to be putting more resources in fixing what is a fundamental broken game that is DUST other side projects like Valkyrie. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1505
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:00:00 -
[403] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Fights such as HED and 6V are already very rare. They're likely to be rarer as this happens more often.
From a business perspective it is foolish to leave things as they are unless they have some sort of imminent fix which they do not. From a player perspective I imagine nobody joins EvE for fights like HED.
A 1000 vs 1000 where you're not incessantly crashing, freezing, stuck in warp will always be better than HED was. Especially if they happen more frequently.
They may be rare but they are a big source of lets say advertisement for Eve. They have a pull that one day you might be in a fight this large and there is no other game where this can happen. It is not foolish at all. As I have already stated, do they invest what would amount to millions of dollars / euros / pounds in either a complete rewrite of the code to take advantage of all the new technologies and advancements that were not available when Eve was originally written or invest in more hardware for what amounts to a small percentage of the player base for events which admittedly happen rarely but generate more news then anything else. For CCP to invest this much more, time and resource then other parts of the game will suffer, its inevitable. So what do you do, neglected all the other aspects of Eve whilst trying to fix what is a very contentious issue with no guarantees that in a few months time we as players will be complaining again because we will just dog pile even more people? As for 1000 v 1000, yes TiDi will kick in but to say it is completely unplayable is false. I know as I have been in many fights of this size over the last few months and whilst it is frustrating, it is not unplayable and it is a price I am willing to pay to be able to have fights of this size and complexity. Yeah I think you misread or I miswrote, I was saying 1000 vs 1000 I more frequently is more enjoyable than HED like encounters every 6 months.
And if you think about it, while technically the HED fight was 3900 people were 3900 people actually there fighting... |
Prince Kobol
1369
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:04:00 -
[404] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Yeah I think you misread or I miswrote, I was saying 1000 vs 1000 I more frequently is more enjoyable than HED like encounters every 6 months.
And if you think about it, while technically the HED fight was 3900 people were 3900 people actually there fighting...
Sorry I did misread, yes you are completely correct, they are and they do :)
Who knows actually how many were fighting but what I can say from the N3/PL side is that other then a few boosting ships, dictors and cyno alts, pretty much everybody else was shooting at something. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1505
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:28:00 -
[405] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:I think everyone can agree that the currect sov system is terrible,and needs to be reworked.
I personally favour some kind of system based on activity, and also based on current FW mechanics. I also think the truesec satus of nullsec space should change over time, to encourage alliances to move and conquer new space as their old space becomes less valuable.
I beliee that unless CCP comes up with a cast-iron commitment and timetable for a null-sec rework very soon, we are going to see a steady decline in subs, indeed this looks like it's already happening. I like the idea of having FW system complexes but I wouldn't just eliminate structures. I would tie them in and give each Sov system a rating like FW system. The rating would effect the amount of Shield , Armour and HP each structure has. So if the enemy force run the those complex's the result will be a big reduction of the amount of overall HP any structures have making it easier to grind them down. As for subs, they have been on a downward trend for most of the year but I do not place the sole blame on Sov Mechanics. I put it more down to the last 2 expansions have being somewhat a let down and a general unhappiness that CCP appear to be putting more resources in fixing what is a fundamental broken game that is DUST other side projects like Valkyrie. Perhaps rather than system based sov it could change to constellation based. Remove timers, leave reinforcement. To capture a system you need to reinforce multiple TCU, let's say a number of them simultaneously which makes it possible to destroy one of the reinforced TCUs resetting the rest back to 100% and allowing you to drop your own.
In that way anyone preloading a system could be bypassed, much like the US bypassed Japanese fortresses in the pacific. They could be repped back up so that if a blob tried to do system to system one at a time leaving them undefended it would fail. Cap maximum amount of damage per second that a sov structure can receive so 100 dreads would be as effective as 1000 dread to avoid instablapping super fleets. |
Prince Kobol
1369
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 13:40:00 -
[406] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Perhaps rather than system based sov it could change to constellation based. Remove timers, leave reinforcement. To capture a system you need to reinforce multiple TCU, let's say a number of them simultaneously which makes it possible to destroy one of the reinforced TCUs resetting the rest back to 100% and allowing you to drop your own.
In that way anyone preloading a system could be bypassed, much like the US bypassed Japanese fortresses in the pacific. They could be repped back up so that if a blob tried to do system to system one at a time leaving them undefended it would fail. Cap maximum amount of damage per second that a sov structure can receive so 100 dreads would be as effective as 1000 dread to avoid instablapping super fleets.
At this I would near enough accepting anything lol
This is the thing, many people have posted some pretty good ideas on where to take Sov Warfare, as for the reason why CCP will not act, I am at a loss of for words.
I can only imagine that they do not have the manpower / knowledge / resource / funds to undertake such a tasks.
Maybe after what happened with Incarna they are terrified of getting it wrong again and having another Jita riot on there their hands, I don't know, but either way they are going to have to do something and soon otherwise that downward trend in subs is going to get a lot worse.
I know a lot of players who are pretty much at the end of their patience and are waiting for fanfest to see what is said and the usual "vision" isn't going to cut it.
2014 could be the most important year for CCP in its history, it will be interesting to see how things go. |
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
130
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 14:54:00 -
[407] - Quote
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be resolved by attacking multiple places at once? You know, divide and conquer?
"This single system can't support our +3000 players and is broken!" seems to be a pretty stupid and pointless arguement when you keep trying it over and over, reinforcing a single system and then sitting on the timer until everyone this side of New Eden is ready to jump in and experience 'fun' at half the speed of a dead snail.
To me it seems to be that there is nothing stopping you all from splitting your 3000 player battles into 2 or 3 different battles of 500 or so players, over a few adjacent systems, and still having just as great a time while accomplishing your objectives in the end.
Your smaller alliance can't muster enough resistance to counter the hostile numbers? Definitely sounds like CCP's fault to me...
"Get more friends to come and help you out." (that seems to be the popular theme and advice now-a-days anyhow). Then split the fights up.
If everybody wants fun fights and explosions, it will take the effort of everybody, not just CCP.
TL;DR
Repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall and then asking why the brick wall isn't getting any softer is idiotic. I don't think the game is broken. I think your "I don't like this any more, fix it while I complain and keep doing it" attitudes and "dogpile" playstyles are. Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
Prince Kobol
1371
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:03:00 -
[408] - Quote
Decian Cor wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be resolved by attacking multiple places at once? You know, divide and conquer?
"This single system can't support our +3000 players and is broken!" seems to be a pretty stupid and pointless arguement when you keep trying it over and over, reinforcing a single system and then sitting on the timer until everyone this side of New Eden is ready to jump in and experience 'fun' at half the speed of a dead snail.
To me it seems to be that there is nothing stopping you all from splitting your 3000 player battles into 2 or 3 different battles of 500 or so players, over a few adjacent systems, and still having just as great a time while accomplishing your objectives in the end.
Your smaller alliance can't muster enough resistance to counter the hostile numbers? Definitely sounds like CCP's fault to me...
"Get more friends to come and help you out." (that seems to be the popular theme and advice now-a-days anyhow). Then split the fights up.
If everybody wants fun fights and explosions, it will take the effort of everybody, not just CCP.
TL;DR
Repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall and then asking why the brick wall isn't getting any softer is idiotic. I don't think the game is broken. I think your "I don't like this any more, fix it while I complain and keep doing it" attitudes and "dogpile" playstyles are.
You would think so but unfortunately it doesn't work that way and the reason is timers.
As the defender, you set your timers so that they expire in your optimal time zone and at different times to structures in other systems.
So along comes the attack and does what you say, attack 3 systems at once and puts the relevant structures in their first RF Timer.
Each Timer is different which means the defending force can muster all their ships in one place, hence you have the thousands of players in the same place fighting it out.
Now you can choose not to attack this system and hit other targets putting them in their 1st RF Timer, but by doing this you allow the defenders to rep the structures back, hence you getting no where.
This is one of the problems with the current Sov Mechanics, it is designed to promote these kind of fights, throw in structures which have millions of HP which require either a massive fleet of subcaps or supers to put them in reinforcement in a reasonable amount of time and you have all the ingredients for large scale warfare.
So in one hand you can lay some blame on us, the players, but when the actual mechanics themselves are designed to create these type of fights then you can see why people for years now have been trying to get CCP to fix / rework Sov Warfare. |
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
130
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 16:58:00 -
[409] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Decian Cor wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be resolved by attacking multiple places at once? You know, divide and conquer?
"This single system can't support our +3000 players and is broken!" seems to be a pretty stupid and pointless arguement when you keep trying it over and over, reinforcing a single system and then sitting on the timer until everyone this side of New Eden is ready to jump in and experience 'fun' at half the speed of a dead snail.
To me it seems to be that there is nothing stopping you all from splitting your 3000 player battles into 2 or 3 different battles of 500 or so players, over a few adjacent systems, and still having just as great a time while accomplishing your objectives in the end.
Your smaller alliance can't muster enough resistance to counter the hostile numbers? Definitely sounds like CCP's fault to me...
"Get more friends to come and help you out." (that seems to be the popular theme and advice now-a-days anyhow). Then split the fights up.
If everybody wants fun fights and explosions, it will take the effort of everybody, not just CCP.
TL;DR
Repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall and then asking why the brick wall isn't getting any softer is idiotic. I don't think the game is broken. I think your "I don't like this any more, fix it while I complain and keep doing it" attitudes and "dogpile" playstyles are. You would think so but unfortunately it doesn't work that way and the reason is timers. As the defender, you set your timers so that they expire in your optimal time zone and at different times to structures in other systems. So along comes the attack and does what you say, attack 3 systems at once and puts the relevant structures in their first RF Timer. Each Timer is different which means the defending force can muster all their ships in one place, hence you have the thousands of players in the same place fighting it out. Now you can choose not to attack this system and hit other targets putting them in their 1st RF Timer, but by doing this you allow the defenders to rep the structures back, hence you getting no where. This is one of the problems with the current Sov Mechanics, it is designed to promote these kind of fights, throw in structures which have millions of HP which require either a massive fleet of subcaps or supers to put them in reinforcement in a reasonable amount of time and you have all the ingredients for large scale warfare. So in one hand you can lay some blame on us, the players, but when the actual mechanics themselves are designed to create these type of fights then you can see why people for years now have been trying to get CCP to fix / rework Sov Warfare.
Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
130
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:15:00 -
[410] - Quote
You just said it yourself.
Prince Kobol wrote:
the reason is timers.
As the defender, you set your timers so that they expire in your optimal time zone and at different times to structures in other systems.
Prince Kobol wrote: This is one of the problems with the current Sov Mechanics, it is designed to promote these kind of fights
From what you wrote, I'd be more inclined to think that they are designed to work however the Sov-Holder deems fit. So if an alliance chooses to set each timer one at a time, they are embracing the 'everybody sit on one big timer, in one single system, for one big fight that is going to be 10% TiDi and ****** for everybody involved' type of playstyle. And that is completely their own choice, and probably because they care more about grinding sov than anything else.
In that way, you are perpetuating your own unhappiness at the game and blaming it on CCP. How much sense does that make?
Using that arguement, the only options nul-blocs have that I can see are as follows:
a) continue setting your timers that way. continue embracing massive 3000 player battles full of TiDi, node crashes, and exponential pools of tears, in which nobody gets anything accomplished or has any fun, but you get to keep your sov.
b) change things up a little, embrace a new meta. set a few timers in line with eachother and spread out the fights. get multiple battles that are still massively bigger and more fun than any other MMO out right now, and still accomplish your objective. have many lolz and gf's in local, and less morons whining on the forums about how the game is broken.
Eve is what it is because of the players, it's a sandbox; if it is 'broken', it's not the coding. Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
|
Abla Tive
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:24:00 -
[411] - Quote
In the interests of having more capital ships blow up, I propose the following:
1) All capital ships now draw from an "quantum energy pool" in order to make jumps. When the pool is empty, no more jumps. Each ship registered to the pool can view the total energy remaining in the pools via the UI.
A new POS module is created that holds the pool and it eats stront to refill it (at a pre-defined constant rate).
2) the module also produces registration crystals which are used by a capital ship to allow it to draw against that particular pool.
3) it takes 24 hours to change the pool registration to use a different pool.
This pool clearly limits mobility but could easily be gamed by corps / alliances using a lot of different pools.
Now comes the fun part:
4) If there are ships using different energy pools on grid, you get "quantum pool interference" This quantum interference causes damage to those ships.
The more different pools on grid, the greater the damage (slow at the start but increasing an exponential manner). Total damage for each pool is the same, but evenly distributed across every ship. (i.e. if there are 3 ships with pool A, 2 ships from pool B and 1 ship from pool C, then if the pool C ship takes X damage, then the pool B ships take X/2 damage and pool A ships each take X/3 damage.
Damage is limited by the total number of hit points on grid (i.e. if the ship C ship blows up at 80% of X damage, t hen pool B and A damage are also limited to 80%
5) This damage mechanism takes place without regard to standings or alliances or whatever. If you have them on grid, they start taking damage! This means that staging areas need to be pool limited.
Taken all together this dramatically limits the usefulness of a "blob". In effect, a big blob can only move a short way, a smaller blob can move farther. Since it takes a long time to define a "blob" (24 hour registration)
Alliances now have a choice in how they configure their fleet. Do they keep fewer larger blobs on standby, or do they have many more fleets for rapid reaction.
Also, with many pools on grid, the damage to capitals could be immense (much more so than weapons, but the side with the more pools will take more damage (since total pool damage amount is constant) This makes for interesting fleet strategy.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1506
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 17:32:00 -
[412] - Quote
Abla Tive wrote:In the interests of having more capital ships blow up, I propose the following:
1) All capital ships now draw from an "quantum energy pool" in order to make jumps. When the pool is empty, no more jumps. Each ship registered to the pool can view the total energy remaining in the pools via the UI.
A new POS module is created that holds the pool and it eats stront to refill it (at a pre-defined constant rate).
2) the module also produces registration crystals which are used by a capital ship to allow it to draw against that particular pool.
3) it takes 24 hours to change the pool registration to use a different pool.
This pool clearly limits mobility but could easily be gamed by corps / alliances using a lot of different pools.
Now comes the fun part:
4) If there are ships using different energy pools on grid, you get "quantum pool interference" This quantum interference causes damage to those ships.
The more different pools on grid, the greater the damage (slow at the start but increasing an exponential manner). Total damage for each pool is the same, but evenly distributed across every ship. (i.e. if there are 3 ships with pool A, 2 ships from pool B and 1 ship from pool C, then if the pool C ship takes X damage, then the pool B ships take X/2 damage and pool A ships each take X/3 damage.
Damage is limited by the total number of hit points on grid (i.e. if the ship C ship blows up at 80% of X damage, t hen pool B and A damage are also limited to 80%
5) This damage mechanism takes place without regard to standings or alliances or whatever. If you have them on grid, they start taking damage! This means that staging areas need to be pool limited.
Taken all together this dramatically limits the usefulness of a "blob". In effect, a big blob can only move a short way, a smaller blob can move farther. Since it takes a long time to define a "blob" (24 hour registration)
Alliances now have a choice in how they configure their fleet. Do they keep fewer larger blobs on standby, or do they have many more fleets for rapid reaction.
Also, with many pools on grid, the damage to capitals could be immense (much more so than weapons, but the side with the more pools will take more damage (since total pool damage amount is constant) This makes for interesting fleet strategy.
It's not really cap ships. It's ships. If such a system was implemented then there would be a limit on safe cap participation and the remainder would still be filled with sub caps. So still 4000 people.
Caps are not bad in themselves or cause more lag but rather they allow very long range projection leading to overloaded system fights.
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
230
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:00:00 -
[413] - Quote
The thing is, how do we the players ram home the messge to CCP that sov mechanics are **** and we won't stand for it any longer. Otherwise they are never going to do anything about nullsec.
Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP finally listen. Don't Panic.
|
MaD Missy
Shadow Legion X Li3 Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:05:00 -
[414] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote: Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP finally listen.
+1 |
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
34
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:07:00 -
[415] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP and the rest of us happier.
FTFU |
Prince Kobol
1377
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:08:00 -
[416] - Quote
Decian Cor wrote:You just said it yourself. Prince Kobol wrote:
the reason is timers.
As the defender, you set your timers so that they expire in your optimal time zone and at different times to structures in other systems.
Prince Kobol wrote: This is one of the problems with the current Sov Mechanics, it is designed to promote these kind of fights
From what you wrote, I'd be more inclined to think that they are designed to work however the Sov-Holder deems fit. So if an alliance chooses to set each timer one at a time, they are embracing the 'everybody sit on one big timer, in one single system, for one big fight that is going to be 10% TiDi and ****** for everybody involved' type of playstyle. And that is completely their own choice, and probably because they care more about grinding sov than anything else. In that way, you are perpetuating your own unhappiness at the game and blaming it on CCP.How much sense does that make? Using the timer arguement, the only options nul-blocs have that I can see are as follows: a) continue setting your timers that way. continue embracing massive 3000 player battles full of TiDi, node crashes, and exponential pools of tears, in which nobody gets anything accomplished or has any fun, but you get to keep your sov. b) change things up a little, embrace a new meta. set a few timers in line with eachother and spread out the fights. get multiple battles that are still massively bigger and more fun than any other MMO out right now, and still accomplish your objective. have many lolz and gf's in local, and less morons whining on the forums about how the game is broken. Eve is what it is because of the players, it's a sandbox; if it is 'broken', it's not the coding.
They are designed to work how the Sov Holder seems fit but let be realistic here, nobody is going to set their timers so they all expire at the same time in their weakest time zone.
I have no issues with alliances / corps whatever setting their timers when it is best for them. Its natural, but there is no getting away form the fact that this promotes large scale warfare, if which ever Dev who decided on the Time mechanics didn't think this was going ot happen I hope they no longer work at CCP because only an idiot wouldn't see this coming.
Asking people to set their timers in line with other will only lead to that alliance losing their sov so why should they just because "it is more fun"
Also a sandbox still has walls.. |
Marsha Mallow
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:27:00 -
[417] - Quote
Zulu Death Mask wrote:I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening. As far as I know the CSM are on their way to Iceland either in person or by remote for the winter summit as mentioned here and here:
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of. ... If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
It is a bit disheartening CCP couldn't put out a simple message saying they are aware of concerns and taking steps. But tbh after the $1000 dollar jean debacle perhaps it's best if they keep quiet until someone can come forward with something that won't inflame people further. It seems a bit off only one CSM member is posting on GD about this too, although others are blogging and commenting on news sites. The CSM subforums are dry for this topic, which seems odd. It's possible both parties are just exercising some caution about making statements and inflaming things further until they have chance for a proper chat. Fingers crossed.
- |
Prince Kobol
1378
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:06:00 -
[418] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Zulu Death Mask wrote:I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening. As far as I know the CSM are on their way to Iceland either in person or by remote for the winter summit as mentioned here and here: Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of. ... If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday. It is a bit disheartening CCP couldn't put out a simple message saying they are aware of concerns and taking steps. But tbh after the $1000 dollar jean debacle perhaps it's best if they keep quiet until someone can come forward with something that won't inflame people further. It seems a bit off only one CSM member is posting on GD about this too, although others are blogging and commenting on news sites. The CSM subforums are dry for this topic, which seems odd. It's possible both parties are just exercising some caution about making statements and inflaming things further until they have chance for a proper chat. Fingers crossed.
Why should they, it is not like they haven't this many times before.
How mean how many more Dev Blogs, sessions at fanfest, tweets do you need? Seriously?
Short of coming into system before every fight and warning people of the risk of TiDi and lag what else do you want them to do?
There is nothing CCP can say that already hasn't been said before a number of times.
TiDi and lag is not a new thing when fights of thousands of players are involved.
Anything else to add? |
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
130
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:16:00 -
[419] - Quote
I agree, even a sandbox must have walls. I'm not asking anybody to do anything, just pointing out the fact that they are supplying their own dissatisfaction.
And I agree, it is unrealistic to see an alliance line up their timers...because of what you just wrote.
Prince Kobol wrote: Asking people to set their timers in line with other will only lead to that alliance losing their sov so why should they just because "it is more fun"
Your words have just shown that you, amongst others, are inexplicably and stubbornly latched onto the idea of keeping sov no matter how excruciating and unbearable the cost. You don't want to 'lose your sov' (as if it meant something) even if 'it is more fun' to have those types of battles we all dreamed of when we subscribed, and lose a little pixel space terrority in exchange.
Of course, that's human nature. Nobody likes losing. I get that. You want to have your cake, and eat it too. But even if CCP does change sov mechanics, new methods of sov grinding will pop up, and the eve community will be left with the same old:
"This cake tastes bad."
Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
Prince Kobol
1378
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:32:00 -
[420] - Quote
Decian Cor wrote:I agree, even a sandbox must have walls. I'm not asking anybody to do anything, just pointing out the fact that they are supplying their own dissatisfaction. And I agree, it is unrealistic to see an alliance line up their timers...because of what you just wrote. Prince Kobol wrote: Asking people to set their timers in line with other will only lead to that alliance losing their sov so why should they just because "it is more fun"
Your words have just shown that you, amongst others, are inexplicably and stubbornly latched onto the idea of keeping sov no matter how excruciating and unbearable the cost. You don't want to ' lose your sov' (as if it meant something) even if ' it is more fun' to have those types of battles we all dreamed of when we subscribed, and lose a little pixel space terrority in exchange. Of course, that's human nature. Nobody likes losing. I get that. You want to have your cake, and eat it too. But even if CCP does change sov mechanics, new methods of sov grinding will pop up, and the eve community will be left with the same old: "This cake tastes bad."
The counter is argument is after investing so much time and effort to acquire sov, why should we lose it just to give other people fun?
However in general I do agree. |
|
Marsha Mallow
42
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 19:59:00 -
[421] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Anything else to add? Why, yes, thank you for asking. Whilst I appreciate that rather feeble attempt at a smackdown; if it doesn't sting, don't even bother, I'll just do it myself: 4/10. Aim a bit higher next time.
I wasn't addressing you btw. When I do, I'll look at you (and possibly quote you, just to make it clear). I was replying to the person I quoted who complained about a lack of CCP reaction. Don't be so sad, whoever you are! Our elected reps may well even now be getting drunk and talking bollocks to fix our entire nerd-world.
Anyway back to you, Prince. Your comments make it clear you are entirely devoid of hope, filled with bitterness, despise CCP and the playerbase for even discussing this issue in ways that don't align entirely with your own. You should probably run for CSM. In the meantime, have the balls to direct your bile at CCP rather than random players who are merely passing on useful information. - |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8720
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:00:00 -
[422] - Quote
There was a CCP response. Not much of one though. http://themittani.com/news/ccp-apologizes-hed-gp-performance My EVE Videos |
TharOkha
0asis Group
778
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:40:00 -
[423] - Quote
i dont know why all the rage at CCP?
3800+ ships in system..... 3800 !!!! ....and countless drones..
From now on, Alliance generals and FCs need to carefully plan such things as number of hot dropping pilots, how many waves and above all WHEN..
not just "everybody jump jump jump"...and then blame CCP that their super-computers cannot handle to load 3000+ ships at once.
Successful battle starts outside of game. . |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8732
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:35:00 -
[424] - Quote
You mean "whoever gets in system first wins". My EVE Videos |
PinkPanter
The Scope Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:55:00 -
[425] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You mean "whoever gets in system first wins".
Said a blob centric alliance member. C'mon man. Drop it already. It really and I mean really makes you look ********. Hypocrisy does not make you cool or smart or whatever. You are not entitled and you are not special. Use whatever is necessary to win or go to hi sec and nerf, scam more noobs to generate "awesome" content.
Deal with the fact that you failed on all accounts. Take it as a man and HTFU or literally quit because at this point nobody gives a damn crap anymore. We just enjoy your tears. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8733
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 00:58:00 -
[426] - Quote
So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game? My EVE Videos |
PinkPanter
The Scope Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 01:21:00 -
[427] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game?
As with every day life stuff I deal with what I have. This is the game I choose to play and I learn all the stuff I need to play it to my advantage. I simply can't comprehend the fact your blue ball which invented all those shady tactics is the one crying now. Level of stupidity, self entitlement, hypocrisy and a literal lack of brain cells is what I find bad for the game. You are not smarth enough to change tactics, you just ***** cry to CCP. You can't take the fact this time you lost, you cry to CCP. WHATEVER stands in your blue blob rofl stom bullshit way you cry to CCP. The **** are you all? Seriously.
|
Arboledaw
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 01:23:00 -
[428] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:The thing is, how do we the players ram home the messge to CCP that sov mechanics are **** and we won't stand for it any longer. Otherwise they are never going to do anything about nullsec.
Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP finally listen.
I'm of a similar mindset. I want to do something to get CCP's attention. |
Shiti Dama
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 03:11:00 -
[429] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game?
Here is the tactic that should have been done in this particular situation:
Drop 100 +/- Dominixes to remove the MCJ. (or as many as you need to simply get your position for the cyno, or who knows, maybe 500 rifters could have done this and light a cyno) Jump In Titans + Short range Dreads (have some back up, maybe 600 in, rest on hold) Dominix fleet holding in SV5 ready to move in.
|
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
176
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 05:13:00 -
[430] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:The thing is, how do we the players ram home the messge to CCP that sov mechanics are **** and we won't stand for it any longer. Otherwise they are never going to do anything about nullsec.
Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP finally listen.
confirming highsec was the cause of the server failure at this recent nullsec battle.
how dare high sec systems merely be closed down to feed the energy of nearly 4000 players attempting to fight in a single system with all thier ships, weapons, drones, wrecks, jumps and whatnot.
I have heard some pretty amusing things on this forum, but that one - so far takes the cake! |
|
Juicy Pop
Sancta Terra
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 06:53:00 -
[431] - Quote
I don't think that this is an issue that can be simply be swept under the rug again CCP. Hopefully you guys actually used the time that TIDI bought you to come up with some serious mechanistic changes to coalition/SOV warfare. The idea that you may just now be getting on board with the community about these issues is close to unbelievable.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8739
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 07:19:00 -
[432] - Quote
Shiti Dama wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game? Here is the tactic that should have been done in this particular situation: Drop 100 +/- Dominixes to remove the MCJ. (or as many as you need to simply get your position for the cyno, or who knows, maybe 500 rifters could have done this and light a cyno) Jump In Titans + Short range Dreads (have some back up, maybe 600 in, rest on hold) Dominix fleet holding in SV5 ready to move in. "Here's what you can do with an Associate's Degree in Nullsec TiDi Capital Warfare Tactics from the University of Caille." My EVE Videos |
Prince Kobol
1381
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 07:21:00 -
[433] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Anything else to add? Why, yes, thank you for asking. Whilst I appreciate that rather feeble attempt at a smackdown; if it doesn't sting, don't even bother, I'll just do it myself: 4/10. Aim a bit higher next time. I wasn't addressing you btw. When I do, I'll look at you (and possibly quote you, just to make it clear). I was replying to the person I quoted who complained about a lack of CCP reaction. Don't be so sad, whoever you are! Our elected reps may well even now be getting drunk and talking bollocks to fix our entire nerd-world. Anyway back to you, Prince. Your comments make it clear you are entirely devoid of hope, filled with bitterness, despise CCP and the playerbase for even discussing this issue in ways that don't align entirely with your own. You should probably run for CSM. In the meantime, have the balls to direct your bile at CCP rather than random players who are merely passing on useful information.
Wasn't meant to be able any attempt as a smack down, just to point out that your crying for some kind of special attention is quite pointless as there have been many Dev Blogs on the subject over the years as we ll as the usual panels at fanfest.
So in other words trying to claim that CCP are silent is well, a load of BS.
|
Prince Kobol
1381
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 07:22:00 -
[434] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game?
Yet it is a tactic you have used many times before to your own advantage but weirdly enough this the first time you have complained about it.. that's so strange.. |
TharOkha
0asis Group
780
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 08:08:00 -
[435] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Shiti Dama wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game? Here is the tactic that should have been done in this particular situation: Drop 100 +/- Dominixes to remove the MCJ. (or as many as you need to simply get your position for the cyno, or who knows, maybe 500 rifters could have done this and light a cyno) Jump In Titans + Short range Dreads (have some back up, maybe 600 in, rest on hold) Dominix fleet holding in SV5 ready to move in. "Here's what you can do with an Associate's Degree in Nullsec TiDi Capital Warfare Tactics from the University of Caille."
...and here we go again.. elitism, arrogance, hubris, haughtiness....
This is the exactly the reason why i haven't joined sov null yet. Because i cannot deal with this cocky "l33t arrogance" that prevails exclusively among sov nullsec dwellers.
instead of micromanaging "how to load on grid" you just scream "nooooo, everybody jump jump jump, fck CCP supernode and its HW limits" and then of course.... blame CCP.
You have should known that those 3000 pilots who were ready to fight and load the grid simutaneously would cause problems with servers. So dont be so suprised that it went so wrong. . |
Prince Kobol
1381
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 08:33:00 -
[436] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Shiti Dama wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game? Here is the tactic that should have been done in this particular situation: Drop 100 +/- Dominixes to remove the MCJ. (or as many as you need to simply get your position for the cyno, or who knows, maybe 500 rifters could have done this and light a cyno) Jump In Titans + Short range Dreads (have some back up, maybe 600 in, rest on hold) Dominix fleet holding in SV5 ready to move in. "Here's what you can do with an Associate's Degree in Nullsec TiDi Capital Warfare Tactics from the University of Caille." ...and here we go again.. elitism, arrogance, hubris, haughtiness.... This is the exactly the reason why i haven't joined sov null yet. Because i cannot deal with this cocky "l33t arrogance" that prevails exclusively among sov nullsec dwellers. instead of micromanaging "how to load on grid" you just scream "nooooo, everybody jump jump jump, fck CCP supernode and its HW limits" and then of course.... blame CCP. You have should known that those 3000 pilots who were ready to fight and load the grid simutaneously would cause problems with servers. So dont be so suprised that it went so wrong.
Complete agree, there is not one corp / alliance who lives in null who does not know what happens when numbers reach this level.
Ridiculing people because they are not part of null sec alliance is pretty pathetic. The fact during that fight RUS/CFC could of taken a number of steps to mitigate the issues brought about having TiDi and Lag in system.
You didn't and we all know the result. Instead of asking for the impossible, i.e unlimited number of players with zero lag + TiDi in one system, how about learning from your mistakes and doing things differently, in other words, adapt like everybody else has. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1154
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 09:25:00 -
[437] - Quote
Decian Cor wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be resolved by attacking multiple places at once? You know, divide and conquer?
"This single system can't support our +3000 players and is broken!" seems to be a pretty stupid and pointless arguement when you keep trying it over and over, reinforcing a single system and then sitting on the timer until everyone this side of New Eden is ready to jump in and experience 'fun' at half the speed of a dead snail.
To me it seems to be that there is nothing stopping you all from splitting your 3000 player battles into 2 or 3 different battles of 500 or so players, over a few adjacent systems, and still having just as great a time while accomplishing your objectives in the end.
Your smaller alliance can't muster enough resistance to counter the hostile numbers? Definitely sounds like CCP's fault to me...
"Get more friends to come and help you out." (that seems to be the popular theme and advice now-a-days anyhow). Then split the fights up.
If everybody wants fun fights and explosions, it will take the effort of everybody, not just CCP.
TL;DR
Repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall and then asking why the brick wall isn't getting any softer is idiotic. I don't think the game is broken. I think your "I don't like this any more, fix it while I complain and keep doing it" attitudes and "dogpile" playstyles are.
The concept of reinforced timmers defeat that. BEcause if you simply strike 5 places during that figths. The enemy will just schedule their timmers to be spread so they can focus compeltely.
Stratetical targets have too many HP and reinforced timers are too long and too precise to allow that. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1154
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 09:28:00 -
[438] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Baltec you can pretend that timers are fine and EHP is an issue but that's simply not true. With what you had for HED you might well have beat PL/N3, you at least would have done some serious damage. With timers being so predictable the winner is the group that clogs the system first. The only possible win for you was to leave.
Timers however are only a symptom. The disease is the feeling of entitlement that people have to massive amounts of null without the people to defend the space around the clock.
Ping pong only becomes an issue when the numbers of systems held are more than the number of systems able to be defended based on low population numbers. It makes no sense for people to feel entitled to 1000 systems when at low population times they're only able to defend 300.
It makes no sense for the games sov warfare to effectively shut down for 8 hours purely for the benefit of the US players. It's a single sharded globally shared game and as such sov holding entities should reflect that.
Timers are a failed terrible system. Invulnerability is unrealistic magic WoW crap and the excuse you can't get anyone to defend when your not online makes zero sense when there are obviously people online at those times to attack.
THAT! A billion times that!!
Sov should and MUST be made so that you are only entitled to the system you can defend PROMPTLY!!
If you want to extend beyond that.. IT SHOULD PING PONG!! As it happens in real life wars! IF you try to push beyond your logistics capabilities you are surely gonna suffer a reversal. If both sides are on this scenario PING PONG HAPPENS. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
130
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:06:00 -
[439] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:
The counter is argument is after investing so much time and effort to acquire sov, why should we lose it just to give other people fun?
However in general I do agree.
You shouldn't have to lose it, persay, but at least allow some risk and chance for some decent fights. All the risk aversion makes for a boring game.
I mean, unless that's what you're into...then just keep doing it and have your kind of fun :) Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
321
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:17:00 -
[440] - Quote
The real issue is that higsec is taking to much hardware power from eve servers. Maybe the simplest way to solve nullsec issues is to reduce the workload that higsec puts on the servers.
Removing most of the higsec faction / t2 / t3 ships will be both fun and good to eve performance - will keep their pilots docked and inactive allowing nullsec to thrive .
It is worth to try. TIDI IS NIGHTMARE - CCP SHOW US THE TIMERS Reactivation timers on : MJD and more. Please like & post in this idea to keep it visible. |
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
257
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:42:00 -
[441] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:The real issue is that higsec is taking to much hardware power from eve servers. Maybe the simplest way to solve nullsec issues is to reduce the workload that higsec puts on the servers.
Removing most of the higsec faction / t2 / t3 ships will be both fun and good to eve performance - will keep their pilots docked and inactive allowing nullsec to thrive .
It is worth to try. That's way too dumb for a trollpost. :/ Please get some standards! :\ Create a new, pretty, female character! Make the name count! Join the epic boo bees! (RP,PvE/PvP,wardecs,new players!) You're at it from day 0! |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
321
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:44:00 -
[442] - Quote
Why do you even think that this is a troll? Isk is isk , and this will help eve to become better. TIDI IS NIGHTMARE - CCP SHOW US THE TIMERS Reactivation timers on : MJD and more. Please like & post in this idea to keep it visible. |
Tornadari Axonium
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:48:00 -
[443] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game?
This coming from the Goons who used the same tactic of blobbing the system to cause disconnects and server lag for years dating back to the first war against BoB.
The Shrike Titan Kill for instance?
|
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:49:00 -
[444] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game? This coming from the Goons who used the same tactic of blobbing the system to cause disconnects and server lag for years dating back to the first war against BoB. The Shrike Titan Kill for instance?
"Ooh your a baddie"
"ooh but your baddier"
"Your naughtier than me"
"Nowait what about something boring that no one cares about that happened a million years ago!>!!!!1111!" |
PinkPanter
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:50:00 -
[445] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:The real issue is that higsec is taking to much hardware power from eve servers. Maybe the simplest way to solve nullsec issues is to reduce the workload that higsec puts on the servers.
Removing most of the higsec faction / t2 / t3 ships will be both fun and good to eve performance - will keep their pilots docked and inactive allowing nullsec to thrive .
It is worth to try.
Man, please, just please stop. Just biomass yourself. It will help A LOT. |
PinkPanter
The Scope Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 12:54:00 -
[446] - Quote
Billy McCandless wrote:Tornadari Axonium wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game? This coming from the Goons who used the same tactic of blobbing the system to cause disconnects and server lag for years dating back to the first war against BoB. The Shrike Titan Kill for instance? "Ooh your a baddie" "ooh but your baddier" "Your naughtier than me" "Nowait what about something boring that no one cares about that happened a million years ago!>!!!!1111!"
What happened a miiiiilion years ago is exactly what haaaapened few days ago. Same side two different positions and they are the only ones crying. I know your stupidity and hypocrisy is what makes you feel smart and entitled but just so you know you do not show any signs of progress and adaptation which are pretty basic things when it comes to real life. To make it even more obvious you look ******** in a video game so **** bro in RL you got to be a very special cookie. |
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:04:00 -
[447] - Quote
PinkPanter wrote:What happened a miiiiilion years ago is exactly what haaaapened few days ago. This just in: BoB War Veteran found in jungle: Still Believes War Is On.
PinkPanter wrote:Same side two different positions and they are the only ones crying. . All nullgimps are currently crying, or hadnt you noticed?
PinkPanter wrote: I know your stupidity and hypocrisy is what makes you feel smart and entitled but just so you know you do not show any signs of progress and adaptation (since so looong and boooring time passed) which are pretty basic things when it comes to real life. To make it even more obvious you look ******** in a video game so **** bro in RL you got to be a very special cookie.
What hypocrisy? What are you talking about? I think you have me confused with someone else. So, you should probably check your "facts" before accusing others of bein stupid, "Panter" |
Tornadari Axonium
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:06:00 -
[448] - Quote
Billy McCandless wrote:PinkPanter wrote:What happened a miiiiilion years ago is exactly what haaaapened few days ago. This just in: BoB War Veteran found in jungle: Still Believes War Is On. PinkPanter wrote:Same side two different positions and they are the only ones crying. . All nullgimps are currently crying, or hadnt you noticed? PinkPanter wrote: I know your stupidity and hypocrisy is what makes you feel smart and entitled but just so you know you do not show any signs of progress and adaptation (since so looong and boooring time passed) which are pretty basic things when it comes to real life. To make it even more obvious you look ******** in a video game so **** bro in RL you got to be a very special cookie. What hypocrisy? What are you talking about? I think you have me confused with someone else. So, you should probably check your "facts" before accusing others of bein stupid, "Panter"
https://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?44536-The-Southeast-Mod-Justice-Or-Mod-Justice&p=550738&viewfull=1#post550738
Enjoy becoming something more than a pubbie shitlord. |
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:13:00 -
[449] - Quote
I dont even know what this is lol
Better a "pubbie" than a nullgimp |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
258
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:17:00 -
[450] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why do you even think that this is a troll? Isk is isk , and this will help eve to become better. Because you can't possibly believe Tranquility works that way? Create a new, pretty, female character! Make the name count! Join the epic boo bees! (RP,PvE/PvP,wardecs,new players!) You're at it from day 0! |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1156
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 13:48:00 -
[451] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:The real issue is that higsec is taking to much hardware power from eve servers. Maybe the simplest way to solve nullsec issues is to reduce the workload that higsec puts on the servers.
Removing most of the higsec faction / t2 / t3 ships will be both fun and good to eve performance - will keep their pilots docked and inactive allowing nullsec to thrive .
It is worth to try.
You really have no idea how eve works or you trying to troll the thread?
Each system uses only 1 CPU. Nodes are shared with spacial coherence, that way the absolute majority of the load on a node that host a null sec system are in other null sec systems.
What would be worth to try would be to remove people like you from game, because stating causes of somethign when you have absolute no kowledge is among the worse things you can do. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Agamemna Sheridan
Eversion Industries Meteor Blitzkrieg
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:14:00 -
[452] - Quote
Not shure if someone has allready posted this.
Has anyone seen this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT6NeZSS3_8
I know that EVEs code is old but at least it shows that the calculations for a realtime 10000 ship fight with tracking turrets and realistic beam and missles can be done by a single mashine (allthough multi CPU).
I really hope that CCP finds a way to make the eve code more multithread capable. |
Marsha Mallow
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:15:00 -
[453] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Wasn't meant to be able any attempt as a smack down, just to point out that your crying for some kind of special attention is quite pointless as there have been many Dev Blogs on the subject over the years as we ll as the usual panels at fanfest. So in other words trying to claim that CCP are silent is well, a load of BS. Interesting response. You either have me mixed up with someone else or you don't understand what I wrote, particularly since I agree with a lot of this. Not crying for any special attention here, or particularly fussed over the silence from CCP right now. I'm aware of the Dev Blogs and fanfest panels as sov has been a bone of contention since I started playing, along with blobbing tactics. CCP's current perceived silence may simply be a delay until after the Winter Summit. But it is unlikely there is a magic bullet to fix this, and whilst nerfing movement sounds intriguing I'm more of the opinion that blobbing is a social problem created by players. I'd argue that can only be fixed with a dynamic approach which involves nullgimps rather than the application of punitive and irritating changes to mechanics. Chances are the best organised bloc will overcome a movement nerf.
TharOkha wrote:...and here we go again.. elitism, arrogance, hubris, haughtiness....
This is the exactly the reason why i haven't joined sov null yet. Because i cannot deal with this cocky "l33t arrogance" that prevails exclusively among sov nullsec dwellers. That attitude isn't representative of the majority of nullsec players, it's just a feature of the ones who post heavily on forums. The more successful nullsec corps have invested a hell of a lot of time, effort and patience into dealing with a myriad of gameplay issues which are endlessly debated and ultimately leech all fun from the game. It's not entirely their fault when they turn into raging bitter vets, and it tends to be aggravated by CCP's response to major problems. - |
Billy McCandless
The McCandless Clan Turing Tested
65
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 16:22:00 -
[454] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:TharOkha wrote:...and here we go again.. elitism, arrogance, hubris, haughtiness....
This is the exactly the reason why i haven't joined sov null yet. Because i cannot deal with this cocky "l33t arrogance" that prevails exclusively among sov nullsec dwellers. That attitude isn't representative of the majority of nullsec players, it's just a feature of the ones who post heavily on forums.
Yeah, but it is though.
And anything that isnt that is a "burn, loot, destroy, repeat" mentality which leaves anyone who considered wanting to aid in any larger endeavour completely disillusioned that the grand alliances arent much more than large frathouses.
|
TharOkha
0asis Group
788
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 17:14:00 -
[455] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:The real issue is that higsec is taking to much hardware power from eve servers. Maybe the simplest way to solve nullsec issues is to reduce the workload that higsec puts on the servers.
Removing most of the higsec faction / t2 / t3 ships will be both fun and good to eve performance - will keep their pilots docked and inactive allowing nullsec to thrive .
It is worth to try.
i bet that you are a creationist in RL. They also believe in something which is absolutely absurd. . |
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
135
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:06:00 -
[456] - Quote
There's something happening ---> here <--- But what it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there ----> Telling me I got to beware Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1694
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:21:00 -
[457] - Quote
Decian Cor wrote:There's something happening ---> here <--- But what it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there ----> Telling me I got to beware
I like the bob dylan version There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Decian Cor
Disconnected. The Cursed Few
142
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:30:00 -
[458] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Decian Cor wrote:There's something happening ---> here <--- But what it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there ----> Telling me I got to beware I like the bob dylan version
I feel it really captures the general population's attitude toward the current 'War on Sovereignty' that is plaguing New Eden.
Space flowers and cosmic tye-dye intergalactic peace T-shirts for everybody.
Unfiltered for the masses.
Forum Posting - Basic Common Sense Level - III Grammar Level - III Reading Comprehension - III Facetiousness - III Skin Level- V Trolling Level - V |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9912
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 18:40:00 -
[459] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:
The Shrike Titan Kill for instance?
Which one? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Snow Axe
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1449
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 19:02:00 -
[460] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:i dont know why all the rage at CCP?
3800+ ships in system..... 3800 !!!! ....and countless drones..
It's the CCP created/maintained sov system that creates battles this large (battles their own infrastructure cannot support). The blame is all theirs.
There's also the fact that they're the only ones who can do something about it, as well. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8755
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 19:19:00 -
[461] - Quote
Tornadari Axonium wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So your position is that that sort of tactic is good for the game? This coming from the Goons who used the same tactic of blobbing the system to cause disconnects and server lag for years dating back to the first war against BoB. The Shrike Titan Kill for instance? So you agree then. My EVE Videos |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
360
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:08:00 -
[462] - Quote
Moderation discussion post removed.
Forum rule 11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL |
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1507
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:17:00 -
[463] - Quote
ISD Tyrozan wrote:Moderation discussion post removed.
Forum rule 11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. You realise you just discussed moderation? ... |
Anya Klibor
Insanely Twisted D3vil's Childr3n
639
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 06:35:00 -
[464] - Quote
"We jumped our ships in, understanding that the node was already stressed to its maximum limit. As such, we're going to blame CCP because we attempted a new way to crash the node, and it failed spectacularly."
Pretty much everything CFC says. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1507
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 08:15:00 -
[465] - Quote
Anya Klibor wrote:"We jumped our ships in, understanding that the node was already stressed to its maximum limit. As such, we're going to blame CCP because we attempted a new way to crash the node, and it failed spectacularly."
Pretty much everything CFC says. Actually it was not too bad at 2k. Was def not at maximum limit. When I got there it was at 1.6 and not even halfway into full TiDi, Jiti was worse at that point.
|
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 10:25:00 -
[466] - Quote
It's all laughable if it does not happen to me. It's all legit if it does not happen to me. it's all fair game if it favours me. It's "pro" to play with broken toys. It's "pro" to adapt to sh*t. The more sh*t, the more "pro". Working things are for loosers. No things fail if there's 2 nerds left to hold the hand and lick the a*se of Devs like Fozzie. Jut proves him that stupidity didn't die. *** Hed-Gp was fair game. All involved knew what's gonna happen. PL did play it better than CFC this time. You win some and you loose some. Who thinks this makes the game any bit better is a Natural Born Idiot, and my Working Class Hero of the day. Who also thinks CCP could not improve the situation... who also thinks CCP could not improve the situation related to null, and all, or most of the small sh*tz we get daily... well, that guy should go fart rainbows somewhere else. This si EvE.
|
Prince Kobol
1391
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 10:50:00 -
[467] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:It's all laughable if it does not happen to me. It's all legit if it does not happen to me. it's all fair game if it favours me. It's "pro" to play with broken toys. It's "pro" to adapt to sh*t. The more sh*t, the more "pro". Working things are for loosers. No things fail if there's 2 nerds left to hold the hand and lick the a*se of Devs like Fozzie. Jut proves him that stupidity didn't die. *** Hed-Gp was fair game. All involved knew what's gonna happen. PL did play it better than CFC this time. You win some and you loose some. Who thinks this makes the game any bit better is a Natural Born Idiot, and my Working Class Hero of the day. Who also thinks CCP could not improve the situation... who also thinks CCP could not improve the situation related to null, and all, or most of the small sh*tz we get daily... well, that guy should go fart rainbows somewhere else. This si EvE.
Lol.. trying to keep a straight face but damn this is some funny ****.
Its usually then goons spamming threads telling everybody that they need to HTFU and that were all just pubbies yet the very second they screw up its them crying ocens of tears about how unfair everything is |
Snow Axe
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1450
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 12:40:00 -
[468] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Its usually then goons spamming threads telling everybody that they need to HTFU and that were all just pubbies yet the very second they screw up its them crying ocens of tears about how unfair everything is
That's a cute narrative and all but let's not forget who started this thread we're posting in. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Snot Shot
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
672
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 12:47:00 -
[469] - Quote
Maybe itGÇÖs time you Goonies abandon or adjust youGÇÖre worn out, but go to, response of GÇ£weGÇÖre not here to ruin the game, weGÇÖre here to ruin your gameGÇ¥GǪGǪGǪ..seeing as it backfired a bit in this caseGǪ
- GÇóOr you Goon pet Alliances could break up the giant blue circle jerk youGÇÖve created out of null sec which directly contributes to the number of pilots you think you need in order to win a fight?..
- GÇóOr you Goon pet Alliances could not GÇ£Third partyGÇ¥ into an already large engagement between two other coalitions which didnGÇÖt see many TiDi and crashed nodes until you chuckle f**ks showed up?...
- GÇóOr you Goon pet Alliances could learn how to apply skill to flying your ships in order to win engagements instead of relying on ridiculous numbers to crash nodes, TiDi systems, or create blue ball situations?....
- GÇóOr you Goon pet Alliances could put pressure on your ALLIANCE LEADERS and tell them to stop circle jerking you sheep around by feeding you this bull **** of SOVs broken to justify the endless blue lists you folks GÇ£enjoyGÇ¥ yet create the situation your crying about?....
- GÇóOr you Goon pet Alliances could play the game as it was intendedGǪGǪGǪ.you know, a space game where you shoot other ships not in your Alliance, instead of keeping it stuck in this cycle where you blame CCP for all the lies you fall for that Goonies feed you as to why things are the way they are?....
- GÇóOr you Goon pet Alliances could stop pretending that its CCPs fault for not developing a game with the capabilities, yet, to allow RARE 3,000+ pilot fights to occur flawlessly as if they happen every day of the week and you have so many other games to choose from that offer something better ffs?...
- GÇóOr you Goon pet Alliances could stop buying into this bull **** being fed to you by The Martini and his minions that GÇ£XGÇ¥ is broken and therefore we need GÇ£XGÇ¥ done before the game will be fun again and until then its CCPs faultGǪ.. If you havenGÇÖt caught on by now that something will always be GÇ£brokenGÇ¥ to keep you all from seeing that your just sheep being used to keep The Martini in new yoga pants and his new website making money hand over fist so he doesnGÇÖt need to work a real job (like you do) ever againGǪ..
AnywhooGǪGǪGǪGǪTLDRGǪGǪGǪ stop being so ******* gullible, man the **** up and start demanding that your Alliance leaders start playing the game ffs instead of wasting your time by making someone who coined the phrase GÇ£weGÇÖre not here to ruin the game, weGÇÖre here to ruin your gameGÇ¥, tried to get a depressed/suicidal guy griefed into kill himself, all while he rarely even logs into play the game, publically states the game is horrible and yet makes a lot of RL advertising/website money though you keeping him and Goons GÇ£at the topGÇ¥GǪGǪ
Fly safe,.!.. .
Podside Podcasts - Episode #170-www.podbay.fm/show/542915403 Twitter = @Snot_Shot-á --áGÇ£If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" |
Juicy Pop
Sancta Terra
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:17:00 -
[470] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:ISD Tyrozan wrote:Moderation discussion post removed.
Forum rule 11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. You realise you just discussed moderation? ...
You realise you just discussed moderation? ... |
|
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
564
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:23:00 -
[471] - Quote
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:Blue standings vs another corp/Alliance should cost isk. More blues = more tax.
Thats all im saying, think about it.
Wow never thought of this. It is a really good idea. Cos of the blue status depends on ho man people you are blueing in the corp/alliance BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
319
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:29:00 -
[472] - Quote
Could go on forever about the battle, but it doesn't matter anymore. Ships are not coming back, the only thing you can do is play on. People messed up and a ton of other people followed right along. |
flakeys
Antwerpse Kerels Fidelas Constans
1990
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 13:32:00 -
[473] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:ISD Tyrozan wrote:Moderation discussion post removed.
Forum rule 11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. You realise you just discussed moderation? ...
He's not discussing it he is showing what he enforces
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 14:56:00 -
[474] - Quote
HED-GP raises a few questions. The Tranquility capabilities has improved but the battles are increasing %-wise more.
My opinion is that the problem lies not in the server capabilities or code but in the abundance of isk that provides the backbone of such hugh easy (super) capital use. ((super) capitals are a exponential factor to counter (HP/required & power wise)
It is a well know fact that corp/alliance have (super) capitals fundings and/or reimbursements and that the sov-system is based around structures that haves hitpoints. Thus the more recources availeble to threat or to use at these structures, the more power a corp/alliance has. (recources in numbers and/or recources for these numbers (the last attracts the first (comfort/ease))
But what if happens if an corp/alliance or coalition joint income is gradually or exponentialy becomming higher by degree of taking more space? The natural hunger for power, the "ungoing capital cold war" and just common sence translates this in gradually or exponentialy investments in (super) capitals. Which leads to the fact that some pieces of the pie has become too spacejewbig that there is no Yang anymore. This is what almost happend in HED-GP, if CFC backed out and this is the underlaying point what PL & co tried to prove.
Even worse, the above is exacly what will happen to any smaller corp/Alliance or coalition that interferes with the bigger pieces of the pie. A thrilling and dynamic 0.0 is going to be extinct without changes and Tranquility will become the bigger version of the Chinese server. Personaly, i am missing the old eve, the 2006-7-8 EVE. Personaly i find eve politic's 0.0 scene aperap*d in the bu* and it influences the 0.0 gameplay significantly downwards. Time dialation is a very good implenmentation but it does not work if the tap doesnt get fixed leaking into the almost overflowing bucket...
By my opinion got this development speed up by some game mechanics that were not good by desighn or not used as intended (the most common known ones: anomalies, technetium, increasing populairity rentlordship ect etc "jadii jadii jadii jaaa") and are still seeping in today's EVE by the "butterfly affect". The thin balance got unevened by negative interferance and i hope to see some positive interferance into EVE to make it right versus the playerbase.
It is a good thing that times have changed and there is being listend more to the playerbase but i think it is time to finaly adres this "red head stepchild" that are leading us to were we are now.
To my opinion, i rather see a fix for this sooner than later and i hope my opinion gives a good insight for fixing it.
My Two Cents, |
Prince Kobol
1394
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:10:00 -
[475] - Quote
Mr LaboratoryRat wrote:HED-GP raises a few questions. The Tranquility capabilities has improved but the battles are increasing %-wise more.
My opinion is that the problem lies not in the server capabilities or code but in the abundance of isk that provides the backbone of such hugh easy (super) capital use. ((super) capitals are a exponential factor to counter (HP/required & power wise)
It is a well know fact that corp/alliance have (super) capitals fundings and/or reimbursements and that the sov-system is based around structures that haves hitpoints. Thus the more recources availeble to threat or to use at these structures, the more power a corp/alliance has. (recources in numbers and/or recources for these numbers (the last attracts the first (comfort/ease))
But what if happens if an corp/alliance or coalition joint income is gradually or exponentialy becomming higher by degree of taking more space? The natural hunger for power, the "ungoing capital cold war" and just common sence translates this in gradually or exponentialy investments in (super) capitals. Which leads to the fact that some pieces of the pie has become too spacejewbig that there is no Yang anymore. This is what almost happend in HED-GP, if CFC backed out and this is the underlaying point what PL & co tried to prove.
Even worse, the above is exacly what will happen to any smaller corp/Alliance or coalition that interferes with the bigger pieces of the pie. A thrilling and dynamic 0.0 is going to be extinct without changes and Tranquility will become the bigger version of the Chinese server. Personaly, i am missing the old eve, the 2006-7-8 EVE. Personaly i find eve politic's 0.0 scene aperap*d in the bu* and it influences the 0.0 gameplay significantly downwards. Time dialation is a very good implenmentation but it does not work if the tap doesnt get fixed leaking into the almost overflowing bucket...
By my opinion got this development speed up by some game mechanics that were not good by desighn or not used as intended (the most common known ones: anomalies, technetium, increasing populairity rentlordship ect etc "jadii jadii jadii jaaa") and are still seeping in today's EVE by the "butterfly affect". The thin balance got unevened by negative interferance and i hope to see some positive interferance into EVE to make it right versus the playerbase.
It is a good thing that times have changed and there is being listend more to the playerbase but i think it is time to finaly adres this "red head stepchild" that are leading us to were we are now.
To my opinion, i rather see a fix for this sooner than later and i hope my opinion gives a good insight for fixing it.
My Two Cents,
I would advise you keep your 2 cents.
Eve has always been dominated by Large Power Blocks and will continued to be dominated by Large Power Blocks.
TiDi is a very innovative idea and by and large works very well and in time it will improve.
The problem I have always had with CCP is that not only do they have a bad habit of implementing half finished idea's but they are also very slow in fixing them.
Sov Mechanics being the biggest case in point. It was released half finished, many features that were talked about were never implemented and has not been looked in any serious manner since its release.
Now all indications are CCP are currently looking at it, the question is will they just tinker and in reality nothing will really change, or are they looking at wholesale changes and if so, it will be another half baked implementation.
Truth is at this moment in time I am very sceptical of any CCP say as their track record in this area is to be frank, **** poor.
I will believe it when I see it.
|
OldWolf69
IR0N. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
127
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 08:10:00 -
[476] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:It's all laughable if it does not happen to me. It's all legit if it does not happen to me. it's all fair game if it favours me. It's "pro" to play with broken toys. It's "pro" to adapt to sh*t. The more sh*t, the more "pro". Working things are for loosers. No things fail if there's 2 nerds left to hold the hand and lick the a*se of Devs like Fozzie. Jut proves him that stupidity didn't die. *** Hed-Gp was fair game. All involved knew what's gonna happen. PL did play it better than CFC this time. You win some and you loose some. Who thinks this makes the game any bit better is a Natural Born Idiot, and my Working Class Hero of the day. Who also thinks CCP could not improve the situation... who also thinks CCP could not improve the situation related to null, and all, or most of the small sh*tz we get daily... well, that guy should go fart rainbows somewhere else. This si EvE.
Lol.. trying to keep a straight face but damn this is some funny ****. Its usually then goons spamming threads telling everybody that they need to HTFU and that were all just pubbies yet the very second they screw up its them crying ocens of tears about how unfair everything is You seem pretty quiet lately...why's that?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page] |