|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6464
   |
Posted - 2015.08.03 16:54:02 -
[1] - Quote
The way I see it is that the problem boils down to people being able to so easily contest sov without having to invest in it. What this means is that people who have no intention of taking sov can repeatedly contest it purely to time waste. That undermines the whole point of sov, which is to promote conflict over ownership of space.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6465
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 18:20:39 -
[2] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:And anyway, people in NPC corps, people who never held sov, people who currently don't want sov, are exactly the people you should want the opinion of, because those are the people who could be moving into sov null in the future and who wouldn't want new neighbors moving in and providing content? (Besides carebears, of course.) This I have to disagree with. There's no reason to assume that these people will want to move into null, and there's certainly no reason why their opinion on the new sov system should be given too much attention since they don't use it. Many of the people "giving their opinions" in this thread have seen that the new sov mechanics are frustratingly boring, hate null groups and therefore support them being bored. People that support the game becoming more boring are hardly the types of people CCP should listen to when making development decisions.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6469
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 21:49:26 -
[3] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:People that support the game becoming more boring are hardly the types of people CCP should listen to when making development decisions. Hence, they're ignoring you and the rest of the "I CBA to chase a ceptor," crowd, because you're asking for a rollback to an even more stale and boring sov system. Few people are asking for a rollback, most are just asking for action to be taken to make this system actually work.
And how is the old system more stale? We used to have fights most of the time. Now, even the russian blocks have called a cease fire to their unending war. Nobody wants a serious fight with anybody, and the only people bothering to play with the new sov system would rather run away than actually fight for it because even they don't want the sov. If you legitimately think this system is working and you're not just thinking "grr goons" then there's no helping you.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6474
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 06:46:47 -
[4] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:There's a whole lot of wiggle room there. I have not heard anyone but Gallowmere Rorschach articulate that the system would be OK if not for ceptors/garmur as they stand. Read better. There's loads of suggestions on improving this system so it works.
Billy Bojangle wrote:Are you seriously comparing the better part of a decade to a couple months time? Also, what the hell was INIT. doing dunking NC. like that? Surely they were told that nofights is the current buzzword. No, I'm saying that right up until they strated rolling out pieces of fozziesov we had decent battles frequently. And sure, there weill always be a few people still going for fights, but overall the system isn't generating them.
Billy Bojangle wrote:The russians are over-extended, it's not really surprising they're calling off hostilities to protect the motherland. If nobody wanted sov, we'd see blocs massively abandoning their sov. Or do you mean to tell me that everyone is just nostalgic? Whatever reason you want to put on it, the new system has made one of the oldest still running feuds end. It's not about them abandoning sov, it's about them stopping their fights. The new system has removed conflict.
Billy Bojangle wrote:"Working," is a loaded term. Fozzie wanted a more dispersed null and he didn't get it, yet. Is that a signal that it won't ever work, maybe, but after just a month in the oven I'd let it bake a while. You still have your space and apparently it's not worth anything no matter how you take or defend it, so what do you care? Yes, it's signal that it won't work because we've already been using it and can see the glaring flaws, hence the masses of posts from a whole variety of people with suggestions on how to make it so it does work. For the most part what it bouils down to is making sure that to contest sov you actually have to want the sov and commit a meaningful amount of resources to it. That gives you something to actually fight for. Having it like it is now where you just throw disposable ships at it will never promote actual conflict, no matter how long it bakes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6477
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 09:42:02 -
[5] - Quote
Icycle wrote:It should be more than enough if they want to fight you. If they dont want, then nothing in the world will make them. That's pretty much the point. The new system should be encouraging fighting. If you don't want to fight you should have no input in the system whatsoever. The problem is that it's now far too easy for people who don't want to fight to troll. The commitment required to attack space should be drastically increased.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6477
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 11:30:28 -
[6] - Quote
Icycle wrote:In the old system you fought if you really wanted to as well. You could disingage any time and jump out just like in the old system. Why should you not be allowed to disingage.
You say its too easy. You try and do this vs a 50000 coalition for a change. The killboard is full of failed attempts. Every night we lose a few doing this. Its not one sided as you make it up to be at all. Its that hard that so far we have had a hard time to destroy another TCU or IHUB. So its not as easy as you make it up to be otherwise we would have gotten more already. Disengaging is fine, I have no problem with people being able to choose not to fight. But consider the old system. You send 1 frigate to shoot an SBU for 4 hours, then give up. Defenders need to do nothing as you didn't bring a sizable enough force to realistically take sov. Now, you send one frigate to mine a structure for 15-45 minutes and the defenders have to respond. With that happening constantly it means defenders are spending most of their time chasing around frigates from groups who have no intention of actually contesting sov.
Now if you had to commit a couple of battleships or a capital ship, and could still disengage if you chose to, I'd consider that a much more reasonable system.
And of course you lose a few, they are disposable ships. I lose a few gank ships to AGs too. They are consumables.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6488
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 12:40:16 -
[7] - Quote
Icycle wrote:Now you mentioned that it happens when you are living in it or not. Well if it happens in a system where you are living in, then well you did not bother with it, its your fault. When it happens in space you are living in, you still have to chase down the interceptor. You still have to waste your time chasing a pilot designed for evasion who has no intention of taking the sov.
Simply put, if you have no intention of taking the sov and refuse to commit enough to actually take the sov, then attacking it should mean nothing. It's much like how if I go to an online POS and start shooting it with a frigate I'm not going to be able to take it down whether the owner intervenes or not. This should be the same. If you don't want to commit a realistic amount to contest sov, you shouldn't need to be considered a threat.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 13:48:06 -
[8] - Quote
Icycle wrote:So its trolling to attack and not take sov when all I do is gorrilla warfare? Really? Its not herassment its not gorrilla warfare, its not a drive by shoot out. Its trolling? You got the definition wrong. Nothing is black and white. There is also grey! Is that how close minded you are? It's Guerrilla, not gorrilla. And that type of warfare is still strategic. It's techniques for smaller, less-organised groups to attack a larger group with the aim still being strategic victory. What you're doing is ignoring the strategic victory and looking to be no more than an annoyance, relying on the mechanics to keep you safe from harm. You may enjoy it, but it's bad game design. Game conflict should be fun on both sides, regardless of who is winning.
Icycle wrote:MOA is very small entity yes it responsable for the greatest number of kills of CFC. So we dont kill? And you can ask anyone, we always try and kill stuff and when we get blobbed we still try and kill stuff. Gevlon may suggest that's true, but I'm not certain of that. A lot of the time you are tagging along with other groups. You may get more damage in by targeting the most blingy ships, but a lot of the time you wouldn't even be in the fight if another group wasn't there covering you.
Icycle wrote:Definition of extending is having sufficient numbers to cover the defence of the system. If you get constantly attacked in a system by 20 and you only got 5, well...you are over gunned. Once again, it's not that there's not sufficient numbers, it's that having to defend against trollceptors is boring, even if you are already in system.
Icycle wrote:I am going to repeat myself. FozzySov is meant to give a small bonus to smaller entities to be able to face a larger one. Its only a very small plus. You still got to get it to reinforce it, which is hard or destroy it after reinforced which is very hard to do if you are small and fighting the larger entity. So in my book unless you pull an ace, the smaller entity will find it very hard to do so. This is bad news for some blue balling and vast of empty and unused space. I think CCP should have done this ages ago! Small bonus. What CCP have done is gone too far. And I know you like it, you guys like a lot of things that would kill the game because you're too busy crying about doughnuts and fapping over your overlord giving you pocket money to rationally look at game mechanics as they apply to the game as a whole. You're selfish. You'll happily see the game made intentionally boring for sov holders just so you can have some short-lived feeling of victory.
Icycle wrote:Why should you get to keep space you dont use? Why should not be allowed to be contested? Why should we not destroy this blue ball? All of these are stopping and making null boring. Its time to inject some dynamics into the game, not the passive system we had in the past. Its null, and its meant to be chaotic in the front lines. The front lines should move back and forth and note remain the same. LOL, and you are complaining about repeating yourself? We're not talking about just space that's not being used. Trollceptors are a pain in the ass even in space being used. Chasing cheap ships designed to evade is boring and thus a bad thing for CCP to encourage. How can you not get that into your skull?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:13:02 -
[9] - Quote
Icycle wrote:I dont concider attacking something and not wanting it trolling. I concider it gorrilla warfare. Be nimble and attack your enemy. Attack and disapear to the jungle. True gorilla warfare. You don't seem to understand what "gorrilla" warfare is. You seem to think that it means "to attack something with no interest in winning strategically" which is wrong.
Icycle wrote:Well if the defender is spread to thin...then its not really the attackers fault. Why is it that you think defenders should not be spread out, but attackers should be allowed to not only spread thinly, but be capable of victory with cheap disposable ships?
Icycle wrote:If the defender fight for it and wins, he keeps it exactly as its happenig now. Wrong. If the defender shows up to each and every trollceptor, he keeps his space but is practically unable to use it as he's spent most of his time chasing around dippsosable ships. What he's done is partake in boring gameplay chasing off people who have no interest in actually playing the sov ownership game. It's like trying to play chess, waiting for a worthy opponent while some kid who has no interest in playing chess keep running past and flipping the board over. It's tedious and it's bad for the game.
Icycle wrote:Yes sov should reward those willing to fight. We are willing to fight. You aren't. Show up with a fleet and actually try to take active sov and see what happens. You'll get a fight. What you're saying here is that we should have to fight to defend sov, but you shouldn't have to actually fight to attack it. Not surprising considering the source.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:15:49 -
[10] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Funny how we all selectively choose which pieces of 'unintended gameplay' should be allowed and which should not. Or how some idiots selectively choose to not understand what someone else is saying. Lucas Kell alt identified. Damn my 'Hide Posts' button is getting a workout.... Incorrect, that's not one of mine. While I don't agree with hyperdunking, it's not comparable with this situation. Sov warfare being excruciatingly boring isn't unintended gameplay, it's badly designed mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:19:36 -
[11] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:and at this point any change, anything different is not a bad thing ROFL, just no. Before this change there were at least some fights. Now there's really not. Even the russians who have been at war for years (put it this way, I was a solar renter when the war started) have called a truce over these terrible mechanics.
To suggest that mechanics can't be bad if they change something is pure lunacy.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:32:17 -
[12] - Quote
Icycle wrote:So you want to have fun and always win? Be untouchable No, I want people who want to actually be involved in sov combat to have to put in a moderate amount of commitment, just like we've had to put in a lot of time, effort and isk to get where we are. A single guy in a frigate should be zero threat to an established coalition. I get that you hate that idea, and think that collaboration is the devil (you think everything's the devil mama) but it's unrealistic to have a whole group of people have to chase down every single disposable ship to prevent their active space being taken. It's the equivalent of an entire army having to take a homeless guy with a slingshot and no pebbles seriously.
Icycle wrote:Hide behind 50k coalition. Whine about no big battles but set all your neighbours to blue. Have no dynamics in the game and have eveything status quo. No sand box. Its only an anoyance if you have over extended. If you are not over extended your territory, then no one can really hearass you. Its not fun cos you choose to defend a region you dont live in. You release the foot hold on that and problem solved. I didn't need to whine about no big battles until CCP decided to get rid of them. We had battles, we fought over space, even some of the smaller groups took space. Did the system need improvement? Yes. Did the bar for entry need lowering? Yes. What's happened here is they've dropped the bar on the ground.
And no, it's not only an annoyance if we've over extended. In fact if it happens in space we don;t live in, it's no annoyance at all. What's annoying is having to chase interceptors around the space we live in while they attack sov with no intention or capability of taking it. You're having a whale of a time because you're entire alliance is completely useless and yet can now cause a significant reaction with no investment.
Icycle wrote:I dont know what Gevlon suggests. All I know is that majority of the time we kill within our group. It is true we do have some allies but the reallity is that majority of the blues are far and we do reset them from time to time. Who else is an allie in Pure Blind? Just one and they are very small. Thats it. We dont fly as often as we would like with OOS, BL or Tri. *cough* Bull *cough*. When yuo're solo you go after ratters and miners. Whenever you go after combat ships it's uncommon to see you alone.
Icycle wrote:I dont see why its boring to defend against a ceptor thats attacking sov. That's because you've not had to do it. Surprise surprise, you don't know (or care) what the opposing side of the mechanic is like.
Icycle wrote:I dont see any proof of space attacked where you actually live. All the structures attacked and reinforced have been so far in Pure Blind. You dont live in PB. Makes perfect sence to me. I dont see Deklein reinforced? I dont see Branch reinforced? Cos you actually live in it! You don't see it reinforced because we live in it and chase off the attackers, that doesn't mean that nobody is coming in with trollceptors causing us to have to waste time chasing around shitfit disposable ships.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:43:49 -
[13] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
No one uses a mission alt to web a freighter. Hell, you just need to lose one alt slot instead of a station trader, then have it follow your guy around. You need less than a week worth of skillpoints to do it.
It takes less than two hours to train a griffin alt capable of ending the entosis fun of a ceptor. I doubt that. When a guy in a disposable ship sees that you've had to come out and chase him away, he's having even more fun. Remember the problem here is they don't want to sov, so stopping them from entosising isn't a bad thing, it simply means they've wasted your time like they aimed to.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 16:00:50 -
[14] - Quote
Antylus Tyrell wrote:Well this thread has convinced me to resub. I need to get into this trollceptor action. Enjoy mining structures for 0isk/hour!
Antylus Tyrell wrote:Goons, you really should have shed more systems than you did. You should have pulled back to Deklein and let other people move into the areas around you. Then you could have struck out at your leisure and expanded to a sustainable size in the new system. But you did not and now MOA has the ability to humiliate you at will. From this alone we can tell you don't know what you are talking about. MOA aren't taking space, you know that, right? The problem isn't that they are so easily taking space, it's that the entire system is insanely boring because it's failing to generate conflict.
Antylus Tyrell wrote:With this system the future of eve is not megacoalitions with renters who are 3/5ths of a person. It is going to be small alliances eking out their own niche in the galaxy. This is good for everyone. The future of EVE is always megacoalitions. 2 people are stronger than 1. 10 people are stronger than 2. 1000 are stronger than 10. 50000 are stronger than 1000. No matter what gets done, it will always be beneficial to work with each other for a common goal.
The aim of this change was to lower the bar for contesting sov and condense the bigger coalitions. It's condensed them down pretty well, but lowered the bar too far.
Thanks in advance though for slinging CCP some cash so they can improve on the game once you leave again.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 16:08:55 -
[15] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:According to eve offline, approximately this time last year, eve had about 26k folk averaging online while now its down to 21k. The trend of decreasing online activity appears to be continuing despite fozzie sov with 18k over the last 36 hrs, 21k over the last week and 32k over the last 6 mos. I know right? I find it fun when I log on all of my accounts and make up 0.11% of the logged in population.
Billy Bojangle wrote:None of the necessary skills have requisites, in-fact 2 hours was an over-estimate now that I check. You misunderstand. I don;t doubt that a ship capable of disrupting entosis can be trained into that quickly, I doubt that it will end the interceptor player's fun, since you showing up makes him happier. If his goal were to take sov you'd be right, but it's not. His goal is to waste time. Us showing up is op success for him.
Billy Bojangle wrote:Immaterial to the point that he's no longer a threat to your node. Yup, he just flies off to the next node and repeats his trolling.
Billy Bojangle wrote:Again, immaterial. It doesn't matter that they don't want sov. just like it doesn't matter that CODE. doesn't want to haul stuff in freighters or mine in highsec themselves. Playstyles meant to destroy and annoy are valid. Of course it matters. It's like when kid A flicks his hand in kid B's face to make him flinch. Kid B moves and therefore is not in danger of being hit in the face, yet kid A is having a whale of a time because kid B reacted to him. That's all this is. They don't want sov, they want a reaction. Because the bar for contesting sov is so low, we have to respond or lose the sov, even for just a shitfit interceptor.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 16:18:28 -
[16] - Quote
Icycle wrote:I think its unrealistic not to live or have anyone in the system and everything is Hunky Dorry aka zero effort to protect. I agree, but we're not talking about empty space, we're talking about space we live in, therefore I stopped reading that entire paragrah of text. Well done for continuing to be ignorant for liek the 7th time.
Icycle wrote:I dont disagree you had big and small fights. Thats not in question here . I dont see the bar lowered to the ground. I am pritty sure who ever enters and claim a system will have to brign the barrels to protect after reinforcement or get destroyed in a futile attempt. I dont see the bar lowered here. If you can wistand the heat you will survive if not you wont. It does not changes this at all. It does make space more chaotic. I am for it. I this keeps going i do concider some of thease areas will get populated by entities that can withstand the heat and others will become no mans land and constant pvp action systems. I fully support this. To contest sov, not necessarily take it, but to be a threat we must respond to, you need a shitfit interceptor. That's all. That's as close to the ground as it's realistically feasible to get.
Again, I know you are "for it" because you don't care about gameplay being entertaining, you only care about "grr goons".
Icycle wrote:You watch too much propaganda and not enough facts. Lol? We're literally talking about how I'm looking at what's actually happening rather than reading the propaganda your overlord is pushing.
Icycle wrote:Who said I dont care. But there is a difference between caring and givng you all the advantages. Zero effort to defend a system is not thats not protected or you live in it is not balanced by any means either! You did. You've made it abundantly clear that all you care about is how easy it is for you to contest sov without having to commit. You don;t care how entertaining the mechanics are nor how balanced they are.
Icycle wrote:It not reinforced cos its not shows. You think we have not been looking what comes out of reinforced? We do more than you think. Do you have reading problems or comprehensions problems. If a trollceptor shows up in our system, then we chase him off, it doesn't get reinforced, but we still had to waste our time responding. You know this, this is what you alliance is being instructed to do. How can you possibly not understand what you guys are doing?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 16:22:03 -
[17] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:failing to generate conflict There is no game mechanic that can generate a meaningful conflict. You're simply trying to blame another lame mechanic for your risk aversion. Sure there is. Any mechanic that requires you to commit resources worth protecting will generate conflict. That's why the old system generated conflict, because dropping a battleship fleet and SBUs in system was worth protecting. Dropping an interceptor isn't. If the entosis link required a larger, more expensive ship, it would more frequently generate conflict.
Also I've reported your other post for impersonation. Changing quotes to make it look like people have said something they haven't is against the rules.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 16:39:07 -
[18] - Quote
Yeah, 'cause there used to be no fights in nullsec and now there are loads, right?
Dominion had problems with conflict where smaller groups had very little chance of getting a foothold, and that's why we were all on board with a revamp to sov than squished us down a bit and made us use our space, but fights did happen. Fights pretty much stopped when power projection did because nobody can be bothered to slowboat 40 jumps to get dropped on by the local defense fleet with no chance of escalation. Fozziesov smashed the final nail into the coffin with the end of the russian war.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 17:03:07 -
[19] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:Years vs. months yields a poor sample size for comparison. I think the jury is still out. And there are sov. conflicts, just not in the north where you've got it on lock. Nothing wrong with that. Your kingdom wasn't in peril before and from the sound of it you like it that way and would prefer even less effort be required to retain that space. You would expect people to be shifting for conflict if it was being planned. But there's none of that. Sure, there's some minor fights occurring as there always has and always will be, but nothing really substantial. There's certainly nothing newsworthy coming out of it as of yet.
Billy Bojangle wrote:I think you're confusing jump nerfs with aegis sov. They're separate issues. I too, dislike the fatigue mechanic. Not confusing them, just pointing out that prior to them there was plenty of conflict. Seems like we're on a downhill slope.
Billy Bojangle wrote:The new sov. impact on the Russians just shows how much space they had relative to their ability to defend it with an active player count. It's not so much the space, it's what happens if you are deployed and a small group shows up in your home. Large scale wars are not so simple to split attention from, so a large war wit h a large opponent leaves them open to attack from behind. Under the old system that wasn't so bad, the attackers had to commit quite heavily and you could pick the important battles. Under the new system attackers need 1 interceptor to attack a capture point. That's all. 1 interceptor. It's a much better plan to simply stop fighting with the other big guy and focus on preventing the little ones doing any serious damage. If the bar were higher there would be less threat of getting simultaneously hit at 100 different places if you deploy, so deployment would seem like a viable option.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 19:53:49 -
[20] - Quote
Antylus Tyrell wrote:You keep saying the system is boring, but it seems that many in this thread disagree with you, the MOA people seem to be having loads of fun. Yeah, MOA is not taking space... yet. Of course they are. They'd say being violated with a spiked bat is fun if the goons didn't like it.
Try out the system. It's mostly chasing around cheap ships designed to evade capture and using what is effectively a mining laser on a structure.
Antylus Tyrell wrote:Well if that is the case why don't we all just form one big coalition... "Eve is over, we all won! we all get a participation ribbon in the conquest of the galaxy" Because people have different views and don't want to work together. Don;t get me wrong, opposition and conflict is a good thing, but people that believe that CCP should somehow chop up coalitions into arbitrarily limited sizes are idiots. It's never going to happen.
Antylus Tyrell wrote:I bring news of freedom Lucas, your alliance does not need to be a goon lapdog anymore. Next time they blow up one of your titans you can show some spine and have a bit of self respect. Gee wizz, haven't heard that one in a while. If we split out from goons, I wouldn't get to hear as much singing on comms, and that's sad.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 20:05:19 -
[21] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:Given the inertia of the major blocs, it's hard to be surprised that nothing major has come out of it yet. Well, we're all too busy living in our space to deploy elsewhere.
Billy Bojangle wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It's not so much the space, it's what happens if you are deployed and a small group shows up in your home. Large scale wars are not so simple to split attention from, so a large war wit h a large opponent leaves them open to attack from behind. Under the old system that wasn't so bad, the attackers had to commit quite heavily and you could pick the important battles. Under the new system attackers need 1 interceptor to attack a capture point. That's all. 1 interceptor. It's a much better plan to simply stop fighting with the other big guy and focus on preventing the little ones doing any serious damage. If the bar were higher there would be less threat of getting simultaneously hit at 100 different places if you deploy, so deployment would seem like a viable option. That's a very diplomatic way of saying the Russians don't have enough players to occupy their space. I don't blame them for putting off their slap-fight in order to consolidate, but 1 interceptor isn't what put all their space in jeopardy. The fact they went against the grain and expanded their holdings prior to Aegis was their big mistake. They simply don't have the numbers to hold it. Lol, no it's not. It's a way of saying that if a group flies away from their own space to attack someone else, they are weak on home defence. The new system wants people to live in their space, so the optimal strategy is to do just that. They don't need each others space, so why fight and risk losing what they have?
Eli Stan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:To contest sov, not necessarily take it, but to be a threat we must respond to, you need a shitfit interceptor. That's all. That's as close to the ground as it's realistically feasible to get. And to protect sov against a shitfit interceptor, you need just one combat capable ship. That's it. Have a combat capable ship on-grid with the sov structure. Job done. Even a Skiff works. If a system is so worthless to you that you cannot have a single pilot the system to stop reinforcement, you don't deserve the system. You find defending it boring? You hate chasing command nodes? Good. I'm glad of that. I hope you totally flame out trying to defend it. I hope your whole entire alliance crumbles to the ground trying to defend systems that are worthless to you. So we're back to "sit around babysitting all of your structures". Thank god you don't work for CCP.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 20:35:27 -
[22] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Amazing how the point can go so far over your head. It's a positive if it makes sov holders rethink why they hold so many systems. If it causes empires to shrink to manageable sizes, or pushes those who don't really want to defend their space back to low/WHs/HS, that's a huge positive for the game. That's the positive we are seeing start to play out here. If empires shrunk to honestly manageable levels, we would start to see fights again. No it isn't lol. Progressively preventing sov holders from boarding tiers of ships until they could only fly shuttles would make them think twice about how much space they hold, but it would be a dumb idea. This new system is preventing conflict. In no way is that ever a good thing at a time when the problem is "not enough conflict".
You're blinded by your hatred for the mysterious blue doughnut to rationally look at the mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 20:42:17 -
[23] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Well, we're all too busy living in our space to deploy elsewhere. So why complain about the sov system when the mechanics of it have no bearing on whether or not you deploy? Lol, they obviously do have a bearing, that's the point. We have to spend every waking moment making sure people in interceptors don't fly in and take structures, so we're hardly going to go deploying elsewhere. What a lot of you seem to want is for us to have to stand guard at all times just to own space and yet at the same time go and create conflict. It can't be bother ways. The hope was that by making in somewhat easier to take sov, people would fight over it. The problem is it requires so little commitment from attackers that we have to be weary of every rogue interceptor.
Honestly it feels like this has been said so many different ways and by so many different people that if you don;t get it now you probably never will. But I suppose that's more to do with "grr goons" than problems with comprehension, huh?
Billy Bojangle wrote:Weak on home defense because they don't have the numbers to support said defense while deployed. Generally speaking when you deploy, most of your force is out. When they are at home there's just enough space. Or are you seriously suggesting that whenever an alliance deploys they should be forced to dump a load of there sov to deploy? Honestly, it sounds like what you really want is for nullsec to be unbearably boring and conflict free.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 21:01:55 -
[24] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:You mean to tell me 40 guys in interceptors can't be driven off by 1% of your active pilots staying behind? Come on man, the numbers here aren't a huge secret. And yet you pull these ones out of your ass Funny that. Why would we (or should we for that matter) risk our space to go deploying elsewhere when we can just live in our space spreading out the painfully boring structure mining and frigate chase over more people? If attackers don't have to commit anything to nullsec conflict, why should we?
Billy Bojangle wrote:I'm suggesting the Rusbois don't have enough pilots to hold their space not deployed, let alone deployed. Which may or may not be the case, but again, see above.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:This is a stepping stone towards fixing the issue. This causes pain to large sov holders. No, it' causes boredom to them. Games are designed for entertainment, you're happy that it's not because of your "grr nullsec" attitude.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:We are trying to make new eden feel 'big' again. lol, no you're not. EVE seemed big when there were 4000 players smashing the hell out of each other and international news articles chronicling it. What you want is to have the power to beat back thousands of players without having to figure out how to collaborate with others yourself.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:This is part of that effort. It isn't an overnight fix. If/when alliances start to shed systems they don't use, fights will start to happen more. It only prevents conflict because people have to scramble to systems they aren't actually active in to defend. Sorry, but you clearly haven't used the system. It requires no fighting. It's structure mining. The whole system works better by avoiding fights on both sides.
And we have given up systems. We can safely manage all the systems we hold. That still doesn't stop the fact that the mechanics for doing so are mind-numbingly boring.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 21:19:52 -
[25] - Quote
Billy Bojangle wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Why would we (or should we for that matter) risk our space to go deploying elsewhere when we can just live in our space spreading out the painfully boring structure mining and frigate chase over more people? If attackers don't have to commit anything to nullsec conflict, why should we? You aren't compelled to do anything, but if you're complaining about aegis sov. not providing content, you can't very well do that, and be taken seriously, from the vantage point of sitting around with every capability of generating said conflict with little risk to your own space. That's like a freighter pilot griping about CODE. while he refuses to log in one of his thousand web alts and scouts. Of course he can continue to autopiot through Udema, but nobody can take his complaints seriously when he has the resources at his disposal to solve his supposed problem. No, it's nothing like that. A system has been put in place that means that we have to stand guard though boring game mechanics while the attackers get to lol about in frigates. And yet we're the ones supposed to move heaven and earth to make up for the crappy system. **** off mate.
Honestly, it's irrelevant what you think. It''s pretty clear that the vast majority of players think the system is heavily flawed and boring. It's obvious that it's done nothing to promote conflict or improve player counts. It's obvious that CCP have some worries themselves from the rapid CSM CTA, so it's only matter of time before they start looking to fix it.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Null was boring BEFORE this change. No it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't this boring. Seriously, actually try out the mechanics.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Where have you been for the last year? Making new eden feel big again has been one of CCP's main pushes. I personally have never fit an entosis link. A trollceptor can only beat back players if that system isn't actively lived in . that's what it boils down to. Live in the systems you hold. It may be there plan but it's clearly not working.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:For the (3rd?) time it hasn't created fights because SOV holders refuse to give up unused systems and are left trying to defend space that's too big for their alliance
If you can't easily swat away a trollceptor with someone already in that system, no, no you can't safely manage the systems you hold. That's the point. Keep an alt in station/hanging on incoming gates, and chase the ceptor away. How hard is that, exactly? No, it hasn't created fights because attacker don't need to actually commit anything.
We can easily do it, but it's insanely boring to repeatedly do so. You're literally stating there "babysit your structures". WTF do you think video games are for? Win or lose, the mechanics are supposed to be entertaining. I seriously can't understand how you guys can sit there basically willing the game to die.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 21:24:08 -
[26] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Eli Stan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:To contest sov, not necessarily take it, but to be a threat we must respond to, you need a shitfit interceptor. That's all. That's as close to the ground as it's realistically feasible to get. And to protect sov against a shitfit interceptor, you need just one combat capable ship. That's it. Have a combat capable ship on-grid with the sov structure. Job done. Even a Skiff works. If a system is so worthless to you that you cannot have a single pilot the system to stop reinforcement, you don't deserve the system. You find defending it boring? You hate chasing command nodes? Good. I'm glad of that. I hope you totally flame out trying to defend it. I hope your whole entire alliance crumbles to the ground trying to defend systems that are worthless to you. So we're back to "sit around babysitting all of your structures". Thank god you don't work for CCP. No, we're at "live in your systems." Defending them against trolls then becomes trivially easy, and even fun and interesting. You clearly haven't tried it. This is why NPC player's opinions are generally irrelevant. You claim it's fun and interesting, it's not. Chasing disposable shitfit interceptors designed for evasion is pretty much the opposite of fun.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 21:37:23 -
[27] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You clearly haven't tried it. This is why NPC player's opinions are generally irrelevant. You claim it's fun and interesting, it's not. Chasing disposable shitfit interceptors designed for evasion is pretty much the opposite of fun. You are incorrect. We held sov. We didn't live in our sov. We defended it a couple times. We still didn't live in our sov. We stopped defending our sov. We lost our sov. That's Aegis Sov working as intended. In the meantime, we live in a system that gets a fair amount of hostile traffic, including interceptors going after mining barges - it's quite fun going after them. Yes, and I'm sure going after roaming gangs is fun, but that's not what's happening here. What's happening thanks to this new system is a spread of solo evasion fit interceptors head out to varied structures, start shooting it, then run away when approached. Until they have to commit to an attack, this is how it will continue, and it's boring.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:55:56 -
[28] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:I have (before and after). I do find myself logging in to my null characters a bit more now. We obviously have very different playstyles/definitions of fun. That's fine. That's obviously part of the game. I find massive 4000 person fights boring. tidi, no control over what you are doing, mindlessly following orders, those aren't GFs to me. We can disagree on that. That's the beauty of a sandbox. Lol, that's the beauty of the sandbox, yet you seem to be claiming that objectively sov was terrible and is now good, even though most people disagree.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:If sov null is having this much trouble defending their space, it's clearly working as intended. Sov null isn't having trouble though, is it? Defending is a problem. Not being bored to death by these whack-a-mole mechanics is. That's a clear example of mechanics done wrong.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:How many times do I have to say the same thing? Shrink your sov to areas you can control. Lol? How many times do I have to say the same thing? The problem is not that it is difficult to defend, it;s that it's ******* boring to defend and that attackers have to commit nothing of value to attack. That's a recipe for lack of content. Defenders don't want to do any more than the minimum because the mechanics suck ass, and attackers refuse to engage because they don't have to commit to troll sov. It has nothing to do with shrinking sov.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Yes, I'm absolutely saying babysit your structures. They are your structures. You choose to own space, deal with the consequences.
This is why you have alts. Are you saying you have all of your accounts running 100% of the time? You can't stay alt tabbed with an alt while playing on your main? And that is why your opinion is void. This is a video game and it's designed for entertainment. It's not a second job. Holding sov should not mean people have to sit in space twiddling their thumbs. Neither should it mean mechanics designed around leaving alts sitting around. You're literally suggesting that CCP design their game to e boring specifically to bore sov holders.
I'm sure we could sit around and figure out how to make broken mechanics work, but it's much better for CCP to make them less terrible, and based on the volume of negative feedback that's going to happen sooner rather than later.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6489
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 23:53:42 -
[29] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:sov WAS terrible. It let 1/4 of the null universe to set each other to blue and easy mode through the game. Where is the fun in that? Sov didn't "let" people blue each other, that's what MMOs do. People can choose to collaborate. And that's still happening now.
And the fun of the old sov was in the masses of fights.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:It was having a lot of trouble. So many blues, and so few people to fight. Set CFC to grey and see how many fights you get. Not that you will ever do that. null alliances are a poison to GFs LOL. This is always the complaint from you types. Like we should just cease working with friends to create some artificial content because the systems built around it are growing increasingly terrible. You're so adamant that we should be force to play your way.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:and it wouldn't be boring if you didn't control so many systems that were unused. Question, how many systems does SMA have now where there are less than five people active in? Yes it would! No matter how active the system, chasing a disposable ship designed to evade is boring. Firing a ******* mining laser at a structure is boring.
And I don't know, and don't really care how many systems we have with or without people. It's irrelevant because I'm not talkign about unused systems. I couldn't give a crap if an unused system could be taken by a goddamn rookie ship, but for attacking active systems the mechanics need to be less boring and require commitment. At this point it's fairly obvious you're intending not to understand why the current system sucks, you're just gonna keep going "grr sov holders" and supporting dumb changes that make the game less appealing.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:And this is why no one takes you seriously. Entertainment isn't closing your eyes and pressing F1 when an FC tells you to. null is already people sitting in space twiddling their thumbs. red shows up? warp to the POS and twiddle your thumbs. Lol, no null is like everywhere else. We are mining, ratting, fighting. Sitting and looking at a structure is bad game design.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You seem to want all of the benefits of null with none of the responsibility that comes from owning your own space. You chose to own sov. put up the numbers to defend it. If you don't want to take the responsibility to own space, don't live in sov null. period.
Also, the fact that I can say "we should agree to disagree" and you come back with "your opinion is void" instead of being intelligent enough to realize there are multiple playstyles in the game tells me a bit about you mate....Are you capable of realizing not everyone thinks the way you do? No I don't, I want attackers to have to commit to their attacks. I'm not demanding we maintain our sov uncontested, I just don;t think a disposable solo ship should be able to threaten sov. There's multibox sov assaults going on. Sov is an alliance level activity. Solo players should not be able to contest sov in a disposable frigate.
I don't really care if you want to get your word in the tell me to agree to disagree. I'm fully aware there are multiple playstyles, as are most of the sov holder you hate. Don't forget, we were all fully on board for drastically altering sov so that occupancy was required, the space held was shrunk and that smaller groups should have a fighting chance. Now that the system is full tit the other way and solo players can harass thousands of players with a simple frigate, you want to keep it as is, because it serves you better. All we want is it to be balanced in the middle.
- "EDIT: Lucas, at this point I'm going to choose to end the conversation. We will never see eye to eye, and until you realize playstyles other than your own (and your playstyle and opinions are 100% valid in this sandbox) are valid, I can't take you seriously in any way, shape or form. If you are able to say the same about how I EVE, I will respond. Until then, I won't. Until that happens, any conversation here is nothing but a waste of time."
The hypocrisy of this statement does not go unnoticed.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6499
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 06:44:52 -
[30] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas, give me a direct answer:
Does anyone whose playstyle doesn't match 100% to yours have a say in EVE? Yes or no. I said you playstyle is 100% valid (even if I don't agree with it personally). Would you say the same for mine? Or is it
"anyone who EVEs differently than Lucas is an idiot"
Look forward to your oh so intelligent reply Of course they do. That's why I supported the sov changes in the first place, even though it's a nerf to my playstyle to help a different playstyle. The problem is it's gone way too far, and people who are blinded by "grr goons" are happy to watch the game be destroyed as long as it make ore playstyle boring.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6499
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 10:19:51 -
[31] - Quote
Just FYI, we have adapted. That's why we continue to own space. That doesn't stop us from pointing out how insanely boring the game mechanics we've had to adapt to are though. That's how developers get feedback to improve their game. If we all just got on with it in silence they'd never know the mistakes they make until it's too late to fix. It's not that we can't deal with trollceptors, but repeatedly doing so is dull.
And oh yeah, I remember you. Didn't you ragequit or something?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6499
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 11:22:02 -
[32] - Quote
Icycle wrote:You have adapter but like others, you left a lot of gaps, otherwise you would not be here complaining due to the continued herassment. I dont see why its boring ot pvp. Cos thats what you are saying. You are too bored to catch a "trollceptor".
Adapt further, move out or face the consequences. No one asked you to put strucutures in a space you dont live. Thats your fault! And if youa re too bored to chase after the "trollceptor" then maybe you should change profession. Swing and a miss. Once again we are not talking about space we don't live in. Fozziesov is boring in space we do live in too. I'm guessing either english isn't your native language or you have sever memory issues, since we've covered this at least 10 times now.
Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kelly after reading that Space Monkeys have come to some kind of "let's fight but don't threaten sov" type agreement with your new small alliances neighbours in Cloud Ring your complaints about Fozziesov are meaningless. *shrug* These things have always and will always happen. It's how we ensure there's content with groups when we don't want to mutually destroy each other or waste each other's time lasering structures back and forth. The other option of course would be we go full blue and then you lot would cry even more about the blue doughnut. You'd know that if you weren't led by someone with the social skills of a demented squirrel. It doesn't make the sov system any less terrible. If anything it's a sign that sov is a failure because we're having to go around it to create content.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6499
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 12:16:41 -
[33] - Quote
Icycle wrote:While english is not my first language, it does not have to do with memory issue. If I had memory issues I would not speak so many languages. Spanish, English, Russian, French and a bit of German. So what is it then? Why do you need to be corrected on every other post since you start wandering off on a tangent talking about undefended sov when clearly the discussion is about the mechanics of actively used space?
Icycle wrote:Whats wrong with chasing a neutral ceptor? I know we do it all the time in our home. So why you complain about chasing out a neutral in your space specially when its in space you occupy. Why is this neutral ceptor hurting you so much? Why you find boring chasing after pvp ship? Or you dont like pvp? I love PvP, I just don't consider chasing a cheap ship designed for evasion to be PvP. It's boring, and if you do catch him there no real loss. For me, combat needs to be about commitment. Fozziesov lacks that.
Icycle wrote:I dont care about blue donut. Frantically for me its more targets. What bothers me is the people complain about not been able to shoot sothing or not been fun and then set blue donut half of null or set stupid rules what you can or cannot attack. Who we set blue is irrelevant to how dull the mechanics are. Even if I were completely solo, I'd not want to fire mining lasers at structures or chase disposable ships. Besides, the comment was a response to us not setting blue, but arranging people to fight with. We are creating content because fozziesov has failed to do so and you guys, our "biggest enemies" (lol), are too scared to put more than frigates on the line.
Icycle wrote:Why complain then. Need to shut up about it. Or change it. Or deploy to an enemy base but not sit your ass at home and complain. People like these are whiners and lazy and dont want to do anything for themselves. Lol? Like how you guys have complained for years about sov mechanics and how unfair it is on you? Hypocrite.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6499
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 12:18:37 -
[34] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Good to hear you've adapted. Good for you, son.
Im sure you personally had a lot to do with that rather than whining on forums.
Cos whining repeatedly about a disposable frigate annoying and upsetting an organisation of thousands of players in control of most of known space sort of gave an opposite impression, if you know what I mean. Are you suggesting that when we see bad mechanics that lead to boring, stagnant gameplay we should simply ignore them, rather than raising our concerns with the game developer? Sounds like you're a bit of a pushover. Fight for what you want mate.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:No, I didnt ragequit.
Returned to studies warm with victory for a bit. Before or after you got banned?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6501
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 13:37:52 -
[35] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kelly after reading that Space Monkeys have come to some kind of "let's fight but don't threaten sov" type agreement with your new small alliances neighbours in Cloud Ring your complaints about Fozziesov are meaningless. If anything, it gives his statements more standing. Since Fozziesov is not generating worthwhile content, and few who have tried the mechanics care for it at all, people are resorting to diplomatic means of finding fights, and bypassing the tedious sov mechanics altogether. Fights are definitely still happening. It's just that almost none of them have actually been caused by the new sov mechanics. I disagree completely. What it tells me is that SMA never want to or intend to fight any kind of sov war no matter what mechanics are chosen. They would rather fight in pre arranged contests then actually risk their sov being attacked. Even though we fought under the last system...
Wow, thread quality really does go down when you guys get told to come post in them.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6501
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 13:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
Icycle wrote:lol since when ceptors are evasion of pvp? Are you mad? What does the class name says. INTERCEPTOR. Its for interception and tackling which all is pvp. It does not say Rookie ship or Transport ship.
I was in a entosis ship the other day. What you call a "troll ceptor". I had an entosis link and I was tackling. If you dont concider that pvp, I dont know what is. Just cos you got some kind of mis concepted notion of what pvp is, you cant blast this non sence. LOL, just bcause it's called an interceptor, doesn't mean it's used for intercepting. You can pop mining lasers on it if you want. An interceptor with an entosis link, cloak and all speed modules is designed not to fight.
Icycle wrote:CCP does has gone through an effort to create content for you since you blued everyone. In reality you should have created the content not the other way around. I am telling you. Pure lazyness CCP have done sod all to create content, they've released a system which supports running away more than fighting. You know this because you guys are being ordered to do it.
Icycle wrote:We have had some complained in the past but nothing to this waterfall of tears. The game before was about blobbing before and after reinforce. Completelly negated guerilla warfare. While Fozzy sov has not fully removed this(it should still have both capabilities) it has given back a lot of action. Nothing to do with blobbing, setting to blue, crying there are no targets and not reseting standings, puttung stupid rules in what can you fight and not deploying and complaiing to everyone. I am sure if you are a reasonable man there is something in your mind that says, I got a point here... Oh ok, so you guys moving into sov, even being part of the CFC, then leaving it and spendign the next few years whining about how the existing systems is unfair because you chose to play it in a way it wasn't designed to handle, that's OK. But us suggesting changes to CCP based on a brand new system which is considered terrible by the vast majority of players, that's bad?
We don't reset standings because we don't want to, we have friends we play with and enemies we fight. Just because we have more friends that you'd want to have doesn't mean we're playing the game wrong and should play more like you.
The mechanics they put in place were designed to promote conflict. They failed to do that and need to be fixed. Simple as.
Icycle wrote:Also please grow up and stop with the personal attack. Be a man. I personally dont care about it and wont report it cos I dont care for it but thats not a discussion.. There were no personal attacks, only the truth of the matter.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6501
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 13:59:11 -
[37] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:"Are you suggesting" is basically an attempt to force words down someones throat that they have never said, and fail. No, it's taking your beating around the bush and straigtening it out. The system has been put in, and it's terrible, most people agree. We're stating what's wrong with it and you're telling us we should just shut up. So to me that sounds like you think we should just put up with terrible mechanics rather than push for imrpovements.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I STATED (not suggested) that someone (you) from organisations of thousands of players controlling most of know space whining about a single disposable frigate is rather pathetic. And I'd agree if what we were complaining about was a single disposable frigate. It's not however. What we're complaining about is the way that an alliance level activity (that's what sov is) can now be reasonably contested by a single player in a disposable ship and that every single one of them must be dealt with as a significant threat otherwise your system is reinforced in 15-45 minutes. I'm all for sov being easier to contest that the old system but fozziesov has taken it too far.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:As to the changes having lead to stagnant boring gameplay, well, thats just like your opinion, man.
Many others in this very thread have a different and contradictory one, equally as valid as yours. Well it's not just my opinion, it seems to be quite a few players opinions from a variety of null groups. Sure, there are a handful of loud NPC alts going "grr goons" and MOA being given a CTA to post in these threads, but most of those are just happy that sov holders gameplay is boring rather than rationally looking at the system that's been put in place.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I dont see you raising your concerns with the game developer.
By all means, start a thread addressed to CCP and do so.
Instead I see you whining and arguing with other players that your opinion and preference trumps theirs. You realise this thread that you are posting in is a thread raised by a CSM member specifically for us to talk about the problems with the new sov system, right? This thread and the other one I've been posting in related to this are the places to address CCP.
Considering you've literally walked into a CSM driven thread going "HTFU" and then bitching at people for having opinions on fozziesov, it's pretty funny that you would go off about how we should be addressing CCP.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6501
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 14:17:45 -
[38] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:So what you're arguing is that a more convincing way of fixing the problems with EVE Online's sovereignty system would be to randomly ban 90% of Goonswarm's membership?
Well I can certainly get behind this. That wouldn't fix a thing. You'd still end up with a group getting up to a size that is considered "too big" by the others. The only thing that banning 90% of goons might do to fix sov is kill off the game once and for all, since I doubt CCP could survive that many sub losses.
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Hey, if your problem is that you have a system which Goons are always trying to game, and no matter how much you change the system, the Goons still find a way to game it, maybe the system isn't the root cause of the issue. Game the system, you mean like in every MMO ever? When have you ever played an MMO where people aren't trying to find the most optimal way of doing everything?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6501
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 14:24:28 -
[39] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:And yet you have not addressed a single post with constructive feedback to CSM or CCP.
Was the same thing with you last time we engaged here. Everything we post here, this entire discussion is aimed at being a source of information for CCP and the CSM. And yes, I remember last time you were trying to demand everyone wrote letter like:
Dear CCP
My problem with X is Y.
Yours sincerely
A player of your game.
Amusingly, you don't even want to do that, you just want to come in and complain at us for having opinions. You're not addressing CCP either. Hell, you're not even involved in sov, so what are you even doing here?
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I for one would respect that enormously I couldn't care less whether you'd respect it or not. Your opinion of me is irrelevant.
I'll continue in the same way as has always been the way in this forum. We'll have back and forths between involved parties gradually wearing away at the issues until CCP and the CSM decide they've got enough information to make an informed decision. If you don't like that, use the block feature before you lose your **** this time.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6501
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 14:52:04 -
[40] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I dont have a problem with Fozziesov.
You do. Right, so go take your complaining about us having opinions elsewhere. Maybe head on over to F&I and make a thread entitled "Everyone should write CCP letters instead of having discussions in general discussion". Further derailing of this thread to discuss whether or not you feel my method of communicating with the CSM is correct will be reported.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6501
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 15:09:50 -
[41] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:How about you do that rather than shouting at other players that theirs are wrong. Irony right here.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6504
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:43:59 -
[42] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:I agree that this new form of Sov introduced a new form a Sov warfare that the Super Cap heavy organizations are having issues countering.
They want to force direct actions that they can escalate and return it to a form of warfare they have mastered during Dominion Sov. That's not it at all. We're perfectly happy for sov to be easier to take and even for unused sov to be basically free for the taking, but the way this has been set out is too far in the other direction. One guy is enough of a threat to sov to require a response. For a mechanic that is supposed to be alliance level that's just too far.
We're certainly not having issues countering. There's fits listed in this thread for ships that put an end to an interceptor's attempts at sov trolling pretty quickly and the only people we're losing sov to is ourselves. It's not difficult to counter, it's just boring to do so.
The problem with it being so easy is that it's not encouraging people to take sov, it's just encouraging people to contest it and evade, hence the term "whack-a mole sov". We certainly don't want to go back to the days of requiring a fleet of battleships a freighter and several days to take sov, but the commitment from the attacker should be at a level that most attacks on sov are serious attempts to take it. That would create real conflict which is what nullsec needs most.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6504
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 16:59:00 -
[43] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Goal of fozziesov: little used space will be tough (annoying) to hold, this is your problem you are fighting fozziesov rather than adapting to its tenants. Except of course that the vast majority of us are talking about space we live in, not "little used space". Even if I'm sitting in a system in a PvP capable ship and a trollceptor comes in to mine a structure, it's still dull to have to go chase off someone who has no interest in taking the space
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6506
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 18:23:04 -
[44] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:So its too far for your alliance to respond to a one guy threat?
I mean for thousands of alts controlling most of known space, to have to drive off a single guy? It's too low a bar to be a threat. Having to chase disposable ships around while they evade is not fun. They have no interest in taking sov, just wasting time. The mechanic currently supports that and it's dumb that it does. I get that you're either a terrible troll or you legitimately don't think games should be fun, but the mechanic isn't creating conflict, because after chasing frigates all day, who really wants to go mine structures?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6506
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 18:25:46 -
[45] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:What you are talking about is asymmetrical, or guerrilla warfare.
Attacking and not holding is the point of that type of warfare. No, it's not. Guerilla warfare still has a strategic goal. Trollceptors don't. They are literally there to make the game less fun for sov holders. Whether you like sov holders or not, can you not see how it's bad game design to allow a mechanic to promote boring gameplay.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6511
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 18:56:07 -
[46] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Snowmann wrote:What you are talking about is asymmetrical, or guerrilla warfare.
Attacking and not holding is the point of that type of warfare. No, it's not. Guerilla warfare still has a strategic goal. Trollceptors don't. They are literally there to make the game less fun for sov holders. Whether you like sov holders or not, can you not see how it's bad game design to allow a mechanic to promote boring gameplay. The same could be said about Hi Sec gankers. They make the game less fun for the targets, but it adds realism and shows you that you are never safe in Eve Online. This is Eve, ganking is allowed, so should Trollceptors, they are the same types of warfare just with different targets and goals. Gankers have been said to be counters to the isk printers called Lvl 4s. Trollceptors force Sov holders to only hold space where they are active. It is a counter balance to Sov Sprawl that we have seen for years. Trollceptors will probably result in some leaving the game, but so has Hi Sec ganking. It is the nature of this game, and why it is considered so hard and visceral by many. Ganking is emergent gameplay. It's also not performed in space anyone has any claim on and you have the ability to be completely immune to it. I have my issues with the balance of that too, but using that as an excuse to support a mechanic which is boring by design is incredibly weak.
And no, trollceptors don't "force Sov holders to only hold space where they are active". They are a burden on active space more than they are on inactive. I've got no problem with inactive space being easy to take, but to attack active sov you should have to commit moderate amounts of isk and effort.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6511
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:05:29 -
[47] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:It can take a long time annoying someone before they decide that fighting guerillas isnt worth it and given that some many alliances in EVE are already whining to the heavens about fozziesov, im pretty sure your will is already beginning to flounder. Why would it flounder? It's boring, but it's what we need to do so we will do it. The mechanic will certainly reduce the likelihood of people wanting to seriously try to take sov, but we will undoubtedly keep growing and getting renters in. This is what you dont; seem to get, it's a boring mechanic, so it's bad for the game but if you think it's going to do anything to stop us, you're nuts. This is more likely to add more non-aggression pacts than split us up.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:So, when can u haz your stuff cuz you seem like you arent going to make it in the new nullsec and im anticipating a rage quit. I absolutely guarantee you will ragequit long before I do. I mean you're already butthurt enough over the fact that we even exist.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6512
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:08:07 -
[48] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I've got no problem with inactive space being easy to take, but to attack active sov you should have to commit moderate amounts of isk and effort. This doesnt make sense. How is it a problem for active space to defend against a single interloper? How is that somehow MORE a problem than responding in inactive space, where nobody is anyways? Makes no sense, man. It makes perfect sense. Try chasing around a few hundred disposable ships fit specifically for evasion then tell me that trollceptors aren't a problem.
Let's make this simple. The old system was claimed to be bad because it lacked conflict. The new system has less conflict. Surely a pretend lawyer can understand that?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6512
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:11:07 -
[49] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:I would suggest that Trollcepting is emergent game play as well.
Spin it how you want, both involve being forced into gameplay that you don't want, and each have their "said" purposes.
The merits of those will be continuously debated. LOL. Emergent gameplay directly created by CCPs new mechanics which they are still tweaking?
Quite honestly I think you would suggest anything just to disagree. It seems you are butthurt of being ganked and want to support a boring mechanics as some form of payback, even though most sove holders had nothing to do with whatever ship you lost in highsec.
Look, this discussion is moot. CCP and the CSM wanted feedback, they have the vast majority of players explaining to them all the reasons the mechanic is terrible. I can't imagine trollceptors will remain in existence much longer and if they do you'll only see us forming into even bigger coalitions.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6514
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:18:31 -
[50] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:You don't half talk some rubbish. If a system is actively being used it will take somebody an hour to entosis. If you live in system and are being trolled by one interceptor for an hour and can't find one person willing to undock and counter because it is boring then you deserve any negative effects that occur from your own inaction.
It's quite clear that all this moaning about Fozzsov is just the big powers wanting an easy 'troll free' ride in null sec with as little hassle as possible to maintain their outlying underused or renter areas. Yet the same people actively organise events to troll people in high sec, Burn Amarr and Burn Jita events for example.
I've an idea for you, why not put up a small, regular 'anti-entosis' fleet that gets paid isk for patroling your outlying/renter regions? As a player who hates grinding for isk hunting and killing 'trollceptors' for payment would beat running anoms or mining any time of the day. LOL, mate, you know how it is because you're being told to do it. You show up in an interceptor, then run away when someone show up. You just over a system and repeat. With a whole bunch of people doing just that, the mechanic is boring as sin. You know this and you support this, because your feelings of "grr goons" are more important to you than whether or not CCP put in crappy mechanics and wreck part of the game.
As for free ride, we already have a free ride. The mechanic is boring, but it's cheap to fight back. Far cheaper than it used to be.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6514
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:21:05 -
[51] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:[quote=Snowmann]
Look, this discussion is moot. CCP and the CSM wanted feedback, they have the vast majority of players explaining to them all the reasons the mechanic is terrible. I can't imagine trollceptors will remain in existence much longer and if they do you'll only see us forming into even bigger coalitions. 'Vast majority of players'? 50% of this thread has just been you complaining about your own negative experience in support of a petition by a few rentier landlords out to protect their assets. The 'vast majority' probably doesn't really give a rats ass about the changes and from what I see for every doom monger like yourself there is a person like me quite enjoying the new system. This isn't the only thread. If you've read other thread, blogs, reddit, etc, you'd know that there's a considerable number of players with problems with this mechanic. Just because MOA got CTA'd to come to the forum and **** up all the threads doesn't mean that the mechanics have that much support.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6514
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:24:39 -
[52] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Yes, Sov has problems.
Yes, this didnt fix them.
But is the now a problem? Not really.
As you and others have corroborated, this is no threat, merely an annoyance. The mechanic is boring. Boring gameplay is bad.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Ganking is emergent game play, WTF? Yep. Sorry, didn't realise you were a newbie.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Also, more on point, entossing isnt emergent game play either since it is a game mechanic hard coded into EVE. I know it's not, that's why I said it wasn't.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6516
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:39:32 -
[53] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Nobody tells us to do anything. There are no CTA's in my alliance. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes there are. You get toldd what to do all the time, we see it in your comms. You got told to come to this thread. Even your leader gets steered by Gevlon.
Akballah Kassan wrote:We entosis stuff in the hope you will bring a fleet to fight us. lol, and yet whenever a single player shows up you scatter. Again we know that you're being instructed to troll, you can eve buy packs of fitted troll ships from your alliance contracts.
You guys really are terrible at this.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6516
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:43:07 -
[54] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:Emergent is any gameplay that comes by unexpectedly.
Jet Can mining was one of the first.
I don't believe Trollcepting as a form of gameplay was originally envisioned by the developers, but I could be wrong. Except of course that trollceptors were already a concept before fozziesov was implemented.
Snowmann wrote:In any case, it does seem effective, in what it is currently intended to do. If the intention was to make a boring gameplay mechanic, then sure, it's effective. The stated goal was to generate conflict and spice up nullsec hough and that has failed.
Snowmann wrote:And no, I'm not upset with ganking, I have done it many times with my various characters. I can smell the lies on you.
Snowmann wrote:I just don't like the double standard, where some are free to troll others, but when they start getting trolled in a way they have to respond to, they gets all kinds of upset. It's not a double standard though, especially considering a mass of sov holders with issues with fozziesov don't gank. I'm not saying ganking doesn't need a balance, but using it as an excuse to leave in badly designed mechanics is a bad idea.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6516
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 19:48:31 -
[55] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Akballah Kassan wrote:Nobody tells us to do anything. There are no CTA's in my alliance. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes there are. You get toldd what to do all the time, we see it in your comms. You got told to come to this thread. Even your leader gets steered by Gevlon. I get the impression you are the 'kings hand' to your overlord Mittens. Proof that I get told to post on this thread or we'll just assume you are full of ****. It's easy. Check your alliance mails. We can't post them here but I'm sure they'll be on eve skunk too. I'd forward them from my alt but that would just be silly.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6516
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 20:17:08 -
[56] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:I for one, and still hoping for someone to post itemized and numbered list of suggestions, especially as supported by experience with sov change. There's some easy starts for this:
1. Entosis links should only be able to be fitted by cruisers+
2. Full defense index should require multiple simultaneous links to get started (2 or 3)
3. Moving outside of the range of the entosis link while it is running should burn it out (like overheating) with a repair cost of roughly half the cost of the link.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6518
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 20:36:32 -
[57] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:I for one, and still hoping for someone to post itemized and numbered list of suggestions, especially as supported by experience with sov change. There's some easy starts for this: 1. Entosis links should only be able to be fitted by cruisers+ 2. Full defense index should require multiple simultaneous links to get started (2 or 3) 3. Moving outside of the range of the entosis link while it is running should burn it out (like overheating) with a repair cost of roughly half the cost of the link. Alrighty. Well done! Now could you elaborate on each point as to specifically why you suggest it? Include amusing experience anecdotes if possible, as per OP. 1. Trollceptros stop existing. While people can easily contest so they risk losing their ship far more than they currently do. This encourages people to want to take sov when they choose to attack it.
2. This give an improved benefit to people's heavily used systems and it further increase the bar for entry. A single player arriving doesn't require immediate response but can be used to begin staging.
3. This reduces the amount of troll pilots with the whack-a-mole tactics we currently see, where they want to get defenders out but run away. This means that it not only costs but requires you to go and repair before repeating the process without waiting out the timer.
That's about the best you're getting because they're pretty self explanatory and to be quite honest irrelevant since CCP will do what CCP wants to do.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6518
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:05:55 -
[58] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:I don't agree with the premise that someone should desire to take Sov in order to be able to disrupt someone else's Sov.
The multiple simultaneous entosis links is interesting, if it is tied to defense index. Maybe high active systems require multiple, but lowest defense index systems only require one entosis links.
I don't agree with the burning out of the links when someone decides to dis-engage. Smells too much like entry barrier to me.
If your alliance is active in a given system, it shouldn't be too hard to shoo away the pesky annoyances.
Requiring more active links in a higher defensive index is intriguing.
But anyone should be able to easily challenge Sov in a low activity system, even if their goal is only to disrupt it. The problem is that shooing away ships is counter to conflict. Any mechanic which pushes against conflict is going to be bad. People will naturally do the minimum they can with boring mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6518
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:14:37 -
[59] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) Yes, I see what you mean. But the cost difference is pretty insignificant. Especially, as per 2) they would bring other ship classes anyways in conjunction in a serious usurping attempt. The trollceptor, with its specific capabilities, is still up for dispute as whether intended for this mechanic, emergent gameplay, or unintended. True, but upsizing the ships is a good way of ensuring people want to fight rather than just sail off at several km/s the moment someone starts warping towards them. Additionally cruisers tend to be more willing to engage. I'd even suggest that a T2 variant of a cruiser have an additional high slot and bonuses and fitting reductions for the entosis link.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:2) More heavily used sectors also direcly (and inversly to your argument) have already in them more population ready to respond or call for response, and are more key locations for defence of its owners. The onus, especially in a key sector, is even greater on the defender to immediately mobilize a defence. Im not sure its functional to require the aggressor to commit even more resourcesontop of the dealing with the pre-existing defence and subsequent reinforcement. The more valuable the system is, the more the defender has to invest against aggression, not the opposite way around. They do, but there's to reason not to make sure that attackers need to bring more to be considered a threat. As it is now a single frigate needs just as rapid as response as a fleet.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:3) Troll pilots are arguably part of the new meta. It forces reaction and dispersal of force which is valuable both to ascertain opponents disposition and numbers, as well as location. Again, the cost is not really an issue though I do think your idea it needs to be "repaired", or I would like to think "re-calibrated" again for another deployment, has warrant to prevent completely riskless spamming. I doubt they are intended as they break the #1 goal of the new sov system, which is "As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved". Aside from that, burning out links gives a penalty for choosing to disengage prematurely.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6526
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 06:08:31 -
[60] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Further you admit that the map never changes (the reason being that you form non agression pacts and dont fight each other but instead speak as a singular voice on every issue because all the members of nullsec have become bed-buddies).
it is these last two points that are killing EVE, not the first two.
We'll probably go back to war with each other when CCP stops giving us reasons to unify against them instead. Most of this **** accelerated after Phoebe. Imagine that. It was your own words that nullsec WAS stagnate, meaning long before ccp fozzie was instructed to make sov changes, now all of a sudden it used to be a mecca of space carnage, come on guy your own ******* words not mine and you deny them in your very next post, when you nullsec types blow smoke up peoples behinds you go all in. It's fairly simple. It was stagnant which is why we were in support of the change, but there were still fights. Now it's even more stagnant with considerably less fights and nearly no chance of a large scale battle that hits international news.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6526
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 06:16:48 -
[61] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Because the Empires have access to superior shielding technology and dedicated naval forces to stop you from doing stuff like that. By intentionally eschewing the Empires for personal freedom, you abandon that privilege. That pretty much fits the entire ethos of nullsec. More importantly, why would anyone want to live out of a player owned station if it could be blown up? I guarantee that if they ever put this in you'll see the whole of sov null relocate in and around NPC stations so we can base most of our stuff in indestructible stations yet still use sov space as we do now.
Andreus Ixiris wrote:So all that talk about hi-sec and low-sec dwellers being risk-averse is just projection, then? Chosing to not lose everything you own isn't risk aversion, it's common sense.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6528
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 17:22:09 -
[62] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:But as ive asked a dozen times before, what exactly keeps you from taking a fleet and kicking your neighbors ass, nothing. What stops all the hard done by "small groups" forming up a giant group and taking sov by force? Nothing. What stops groups actually fighting when they fly into sov holders space rather than bringing shitfit interceptors and running away? Nothing. Don't act like the entire problem is us just because you think it should be our responsibility to work with crappy mechanics.
We could go out and create fights risking our sov in the process while we're deployed. Alternatively we can find likeminded people and arrange content between ourselves with little risk to our space and continue as ever we did during dominion.
The whole idea of this sov systems was to make it fun enough for both sides that people would want to engage with it. Since it's not, there no reason for us to do anything beyond what we used to do, and since it's simpler to both attack and defend, we don;t even need to create the big battles we used to have periodically. This system will create more stagnation than dominion sov. It's not up to us to turn a crappy mechanic into content.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Stop posting, get off your space butts and find another alliance to entoss and show up when its battle time, easy. No thanks, I'm not into mining structures.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:And on the issue of stagnant it will change not when CCP comes up with some magic mechanic it will occur when you make it occur. Then it won't happen and null will remain the area we farm between highsec gank ops.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6528
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 17:28:28 -
[63] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Why does every discussion of escalation have to come back to BR5? Why does everyone seem to want every fleet engagement to have the possibility of turning into BR5? Yes, it was certainly an impressive engagement in terms of sheer scale but do we really want every battle to turn into an 8-hour 75% TiDi slugfest? I think it's because following BR5 there were international news articles (in mainstream news, not just gaming news) and an influx of new players. That's what drives people to the game. "Come and play whack-a-mole in space" isn't.
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Chosing to not lose everything you own isn't risk aversion, it's common sense. People who live in wormhole space do this all the time. Are you essentially conceding that wormhole dwellers are less risk-averse and more committed to the spirit of EVE than nullsec dewllers? Because if so, I wholeheartedly agree. I definitely would say they are less risk averse, yes. I certainly wouldn't suggest they put as much at risk as would be at risk if stations could explode though. Wormholers on an individual level risk a hell of a lot more than most null line members, but very few risk everything.
Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It was stagnant which is why we were in support of the change, but there were still fights. Now it's even more stagnant with considerably less fights and nearly no chance of a large scale battle that hits international news. Your alliance just semi-blued all your new small neighbours who moved into Cloud Ring so your alliance can have no complaints about lack of fights! That's an attempt to generate fights by taking sov off the table during the battles. We won't be blue, we simply won't use entosis links. None of the serious null players want to be messing around with the new sov system more than they absolutely need to. Why? Because it's boring.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6528
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 17:30:40 -
[64] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:More importantly, why would anyone want to live out of a player owned station if it could be blown up? I guarantee that if they ever put this in you'll see the whole of sov null relocate in and around NPC stations so we can base most of our stuff in indestructible stations yet still use sov space as we do now. Would you still feel that way if stations could be blown up but assets trapped inside get teleported somewhere else once station goes pop? Nope, that would be fine. The problem is I doubt they'd do that. It's more likely to be like the new POS drop mechanics will be, where things appear in cans only you can find and access. The issue with that is the millions or billions of M3 worth of goods some of us have in stations to keep them stocked. Anything short of what you suggest and it will always be better to relocate to NPC null.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6536
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 08:25:21 -
[65] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I think it's because following BR5 there were international news articles (in mainstream news, not just gaming news) and an influx of new players. That's what drives people to the game. "Come and play whack-a-mole in space" isn't. It drove a lot of people to the game, who promptly left when they discovered that nullsec fights like that happen incredibly seldom because even in the days of BR-5 the vast majority of nullsec was blue to each other. Which is why conflict need to be encouraged by nullsec mechanics. If they read the news about big battles then arrived and found that there was a healthy amount of smaller battles they can get straight in on between the big ones, they'd be much more inclined to stay.
Andreus Ixiris wrote:There are tens of thousands of subscribed players in nullsec. If you wanted war, there's nothing in the world bad game mechanics could do to stop you short of dropping all input from the F1 key. If you wanted an end to powerblocs and coalitions, you could voluntarily shut them down yourselves. If you wanted smaller organisations to have a chance you could stop pouncing on them at every opportunity. At any point you could simply decide you don't like the look of a neighbour's face and try to rearrange it. Like nearly everyone in every MMO ever, we're always going to work as efficiently as we can with the mechanics. Yes we could just throw stuff away to create content, but why the **** should we? Why should we stop minmaxing while everyone else continues just because CCP don't want to make the mechanics fun in the first place? What we want is quite simple. We want the most efficient thing to do in nullsec to be what generates conflict in the first place. If they just dump in crappy mechanics they can expect us to work around them to maintain what we have.
Andreus Ixiris wrote:PAPULA wrote:Dominion sov was super awesome compared to this boring sov. You complained about structure grinding, so CCP removed it. Now you whine that you want it back. I think very few people want dominion back, but the new system is worst than the old one.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6536
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 10:04:51 -
[66] - Quote
Zsha wrote:WORD. Good post mate.
I have confidence CCP will get this right. I think they have, maybe some tweaks need to be made from what I've heard, they will probably come in time.
People just need to ******* relax imo and adapt.
People with the highest levels of intelligence adapt the quickest.
People with a low level of mental capacity will just whine and whinge like little b1tches and spit their dummies out like the majority of people posting in this thread.
The alliance which makes the most intelligent decisions quickest will boss it. 
Actually, those of us here saying "the system is crap" are those who have adapted already. We've worked out that the best way to work with the new sov system is to ignore it and wok around it. The downside to that is it exacerbates the problem of stagnation in null.
And generally speaking, people with "a low level of mental capacity" come into threads on their NPC alts pretending they know more than they do about a situation and calling other people dumb. Come back when a) you've use the new system, and b) you're committed enough to your opinion to post with your main.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6540
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 13:27:43 -
[67] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Pre the Pheobe changes CFC's whole philosophy about sov war was to bore an attacker to death. CCP can't change your groups core mentality for you. You just hate he fact that attackers can now use similar tactics in space not being used on a regular basis. Actually, before the changes he optimal strategy for both sides was to blueball a good portion of fights. Now it's only on the attackers sides and doesn't require the attacker to form up a giant fleet to look like they are going to attack. And attackers can (and do) use it in all space now.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6540
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 23:30:30 -
[68] - Quote
Icycle wrote:I think its disgracefull to complain about boredom and that fozzysov is boring when they are clearly not doing nothing them selves to spice it up. You have massive blob of blues and they wont deploy. CFC fault, not the rest of eve or CCP. It was like this before so nothing to do with fuzzy sov. Fozzy sovstill brings a lot of fun and pvp. There are those that already are choosing to escalate it from the start to titans  "not doing nothing". So we're doing something?
And lol, we're back to that crap where you're suggesting that because CCP can't design a fun mechanic that we should cripple ourselves to create content. How about we go back to dominion sov, then the onus is back on you to create your own superblob to fight? No? Oh that's right, because you guys shouldn't be forced to play any particular way, but we should just abandon our coalitions and fight at random with our neighbours to keep the game going.
**** that. If CCP can't build an entertaining mechanic, we'll continue to just farm null as we ever have until the game dies.
Snowmann wrote:The recent Sov changes came about because of the complaints about the previous Sov system, and the blue donut. Yes. You guys crying about the mysterious blue doughnut and actively refusing to do what you needed to do to fight in the sov system (form up into coalitions) because it bored you, so you complained. Now it's the other way round, where we're expected to just trash our way of playing to play with the boring new struture mining whack-a-mole mechanics. You're a hypocrite.
I think the real issue is the players and leaders themselves. They are bored with "this" game as it is, and they won't play in the new system because they don't automatically have the advantage like they used to.
Snowmann wrote:Sov warfare now has a much lower barrier to entry and their big toys can be easily outmaneuvered in the new system.
They want fights on their terms, where the incumbents have the advantage. No they can't. Nobody can take sov that we want under the new system without fighting our "big toys". They still exist and any serious attempts to take sov will result in fleet fights which we will generally outblob. The only difference is that idiots in interceptors feel relevant when they make us have to respond almost constatntly.
Snowmann wrote:Getting new blood out there and at the top would be far more effective. Go on then. You think new blood is needed, so be new blood. Form up your own alliance and your own coalition and take some space.
Snowmann wrote:But the ultimate change would be to make the best gear rare, not by cost, but by being unique.
That would probably be the hardest change, but it might be the best. Why would it? The best gear is mostly irrelevant anyway. Sheer numbers beat out shiptypes any day. All you're really saying here is "I don't like titans, therefore titans should be removed". It's not going to happen.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6540
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 23:41:23 -
[69] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:1. You admit that you have gamed nullsec and the reason you dont find big fights is because you dont want to, thanks its about time at least one of you admitted this truth, certainly a step in the right direction. Everyone games every system. It's the nature of MMOs and pretty much the most defining win metric. We could easily set each other red and fight, but we would literally be throwing away what we have just to generate content because CCP are bad at game design. No thanks, I'd literally rather watch null die than have to fake content into the game.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:2. You ask why dont i condemn those small groups for not bringing you big fights it is because i have not heard them moaning en masse that they want big fights, it is you that said you did and at the same time give yet another lame excuse why you dont, that being you might lose sov well that is what your fights are supposed to be about not staged slap fights in space. Of course you haven't, because most of them are "grr goons". They don't care whether null mechanics or fun or whether players are attracted to EVE, they simply want to feel like they've got one up on the null groups. What dumb is that this mechanic also make it easier for use to deny people space if we really want to, and I think as renter alliances grow back in you're going to see that happening a lot more.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:3. If nullsec remains stagnant that is okay as i said CCP cant make you have fun, you can block that fun any time you like but dont blame fozziesov because you want to sit on your space ass and do nothing all day, fozziesov is telling you that isnt how its going to be anymore. So fight frigates all day or go get into a big fight but stop blaming fozziesov for your personal shortcomings. You say that's OK, but CCP disagrees. They know that nullsec is a massive portion of the appeal of the game, and they won't leave that to die. And no, Fozziesov isn't saying that. If anything it's saying "sit on your ass more" since we now have to farm our space to keep indices up. Sure, we have to chase frigates and the capture mechanics are boring as hell, but we can pretty much ignore most of the mechanics and be safe in the knowledge that our space is secure. Fozziesov was supposed to encourage people to want to fight, it failed. That's what you don't seem to be able to get into your head over whatever it is that goonswarm did to make you flip your **** like you have here.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6540
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 23:48:51 -
[70] - Quote
Loneball wrote:Give us an actual reason?
LoL! Ok, uhhhh. . . . . .
How about we issue:
CHALLENGES!!!!
Party A issues a CHALLENGE to Party B!!!
Party B has 5 minutes to respond and fight. If they do not undock and aggress on one of the challengers within that 5 minutes,
PARTY B GETS BANNED FROM THE GAME FOR 24 HOURS!
That's an actual reason right?
Play the game or you'll not get to play the game. That's kind of how it is right now, but maybe we should make it official. Minus the bannign part, that's what we're asking for. The problem is, it's currently this.
1. Party A shows up in disposable ships
2. Party A challenges Party B
3. Party B shows up to fight
4. Party A runs away and cloaks
5. Party B returns to ratting
6. Goto 1
What we want is for Party A to put enough on the line for step 1 that they may actually lose during the fight so that when the challenge Party B, a fight actually occurs. That won't happen without trollceptors going in the bin and more needing to be put on the field to challenge sov. It used to require too many people and too much isk. Now it requires too few people and too little isk. It just needs to be balanced somewhere in the middle. I think at some point along the line CCP forgot this is an alliance level mechanic, not something one idiot in a frigate should be able to contest.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6540
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 23:54:44 -
[71] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:No, you let min/maxing supersede fun, it isnt some kind of game requirement, you blame human nature but you do realize that most people playing video games, EVE or otherwise DONT min/max they settle for pretty damn good and leave it there because min/maxing tends to make playing a video game feel more like a job than a source of entertainment.
Choose fun and you'll find it, make excuses and you wont. Generally speaking the people that don't minmax MMOS are the people that are terrible at playing them. You seem to think that minmaxing and fun can't go hand in hand, but in most games they can. Even in EVE, we can still minmax and have fun, we are just ignoring the vast majority of fozziesov to do it.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:You (nullsec) chose to have few fights before and you are choosing to have zero of them now, not because fozziesov has made big fights impossible, quite the contrary it has made them easier to get into but you are CHOOSING to fight fozziesov instead of CHOOSING to use it to get into big fights. And as i mentioned in other posts CCP cannot force you to have fun with fozziesov, you could choose to but..........you stubbornly wont.......by choice.
Instead you are throwing the biggest self-pity party in the history of EVE, congrats well played and to such a productive end. No it hasn't. How in any reality s it now easier to get into fights?
In dominion sov we got into fights when we set them up or when someone legitimately wanted to take sov.
In fozziesov we get into fights when we set them up or when someone legitimately wants to take sov. The problem is that actually taking sov in the new system is boring as sin, so very few serious players want to do it and that number will decrease as people get bored of mining structures only to get roflstomped by the local blob.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6540
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 00:27:26 -
[72] - Quote
Loneball wrote:OK so you know what you want.
Tell me a specific system that will motivate you to fight every possible fight. I don;t know of a particular system that would do it off the top of my head, though to fix the current one so it would work considerably better than it does, I've already answered this.
I'd make the minimum ship size for entosis links a cruiser or possibly battle cruiser, I'd make entosis links burn out and require around half their cost if you move out of range while they are active, and I'd make it so that you need multiple links to start a capture (not so sustain it once started) in higher defence indices. What that would do is ensure more people attacking sov were doing so because they actually want to to take sov, not just to make the defenders send out a ship to chase them off every 5 minutes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6540
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 00:43:41 -
[73] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas Kell:
If as you say, you are losing population and interest to boredom, how about this:
Start a proper war.
Even better, start several.
Set the whole goddam universe on fire. Why don't you start a war? Why should the onus fall on us to make up for terrible mechanics? When dominion sov was out, small groups complained that we owned too much space. Did they form up into coalitions and fight us? Not, they complained to no end about how the mechanics forced them to be too big. Now the mechanics allow them to be smaller and all they do is run away when engaged. Seems like it's always us that has to bear the burden of bad game mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6542
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 09:56:34 -
[74] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:Only stupid players would engage a significantly superior force in symmetric warfare when asymmetric means are available. Yes, you are being engaged asymmetrically. First off, forming a coalitions yourself makes you an equal force. Secondly, noone is engaging us in asymmetric war. Noone is actually attacking us for strategic victory. There's simply people who want to time waste since the system allows them to. You guys and your misunderstanding of how war works is funny.
Snowmann wrote:Also, its not CCPs job in a sandbox game to create Sov mechanics that make you "want" to go to war. Its their job to create Sov mechanics to support you going to war. Its up to the player to want it. Of course it is! It's 100% their job to create mechanics players want to use.
Snowmann wrote:Yes, we actually create our own content with the mechanics we are given. Good for you. We're going to create our own content by ignoring **** mechanics and farming isk.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6545
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 17:26:03 -
[75] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:No one would do anything in this game without a purpose. There is always a reason. You may not see it or agree with it but there is one.
Strategic victory may not even be in anyone's mind when they are attacking you. Tactical victory over you or even psychological warfare against someone not even involved could be their objectives.
Even psychological warfare against CCP could be in the works. You can dress it up however you want, but it's people who want to use the fact that the mechanics are boring to make the game dull for certain players. It's a failure of the mechanics to do what they were intended to do, which is make the act of competing for sov entertaining for all involved.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6545
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 22:01:32 -
[76] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:I would suggest that what you and many others are looking for is for the mechanics to allow you to force others to fight on your terms alone, what you think is fun. Then you'd be wrong. It's that simple. It's been explained hundreds of times over and there's no possible way you still don't get it, leading me to believe you have no interest in what we actually want. I'm not going to continue to rehash the same conversation over and over with you. CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6546
|
Posted - 2015.08.09 22:23:42 -
[77] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already...  probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 06:46:07 -
[78] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face. I like to imagine it goes something like this: a) "Have the alliances stopped trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "No." a) "Hmm. Are the alliances pissed about trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "Yes." a) "Op success! Good job, everybody. They'll either figure out the new Aegis paradigm, or burn themselves out while banging their head against the wall over and over and over." Except of course the part where alliances aren't pissed by defending systems they don't used, they're bored by defending systems the DO use. How long have you been in this thread and you still don't know what the issue is?
The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all. It's not, therefore it failed. Very few people actually want to use the system because it's s boring, hence people using it the absolute bare minimum they need to.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 07:02:34 -
[79] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:
The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all.
Citation needed. Dev Blog.
Quote:Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
This goal forms the core of what we want to accomplish with Phase Two.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 07:44:47 -
[80] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:they're bored by defending systems the DO use "FozzieSov has made us actually have to expend effort to defend our systems!" Yes, indeed, how dare they. It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:08:12 -
[81] - Quote
Antylus Tyrell wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:]It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad. Lucas, you have said this about 100 times in this thread already, we all get that you think it is boring. Go move to a wormhole or highsec if you don't like it. The community does not agree with you, these changes are going to be great for the game. And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected. What thread are you reading? Clearly the community does agree with me. Even MOA getting a CTA to come and **** up these threads hasn't produced very much opposition to the fact that the new mechanics suck.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Stands to reason CCP will fine tune changes eventually.
In the meantime you can attempt to create content by taking the fight to others and forcing them to defend. Translation "CCP can't design fun mechanics so ignore them and do what you needed to do for content under the old system". Seems like a waste of dev time if all they've managed to produce is a different reason for us to do what we did anyway.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6547
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:44:29 -
[82] - Quote
afkalt wrote:People keep saying it doesn't bring fights.
So I have a question: Is anyone with weight to throw around actually running a campaign to contest a middleweight (or above) alliances Sov? No, because nobody with weight to throw around wants to fire mining lasers at structures. We'd rather fire mining lasers at rocks and afk rat while we gank noobs in highsec for kicks. Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. These are all problems that were predetermined long before these mechanics went live.
afkalt wrote:What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. That's pretty much the bulk of the the new system, yes.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:50:16 -
[83] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:My reading of the dev blog gives the strong impression of the direction CCP is taking through the stated numbered goals, and that this is just laying the groundwork for those. My reading of the dev blog gives me the strong impression that they don't understand what players want from the game, which is why they replaced shooting with mining and it's all gone wrong.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:If you want fights, form up, head out and commit. We want to achieve the best we can with whatever system is in place, and ideally we'd like that to require conflict. Since it doesn't require conflict and actually benefits us more from avoidance of the same, we have no reason to form up. Sometimes I wonder if CCPs goal is for us to all be blue.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:55:19 -
[84] - Quote
Antylus Tyrell wrote:Lucas you do realize that every post made here by "Lucas Kell" is not actually a bunch of different people named lucas kell supporting your case. Its just one guy, you....
Stop wasting ccps time and get out there and defend your space. You could have repaired several nodes in the time you have taken here to make the same "its boring" post over and over. There's plenty of people here, in other thread and in other places on the net stating the exact same thing, that nobody wants to mine structures. It's not my fault that you're so infatuated with me that you attribute every post as mine.
And we are defending our space, genius. At no point have I stated "the problem with this system is that firing sensor damps is just too damn hard!". It's ludicrously easy for us to hold our space and spend even more time generating isk. The problem with that is that it causes stagnation on a greater scale than it used to.
Sometimes when I read posts from people like you I wonder if your end goal is to kill off EVE altogether.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 09:58:51 -
[85] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. A fair and true enough assesment. But that is the new status quo. The risk of deployment and aggressive action is commensurate with your own system defences being more vulnerable. If you choose that it is more expedient to not deploy for this reason, then that is your choice. Its a choice, and a risk, everyone has to make for themselves. You can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the water, just means you have a very stubborn horse or its not thirsty enough yet. And if this were related to hydrating a horse, then you'd have a point. Games however can be made to require conflict. Seems like CCP have decided that conflict is bad though and thought "lets make taking sov require no conflict and make staying in your own space and just defending that far more appealing than aggressing anyone else".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 10:20:42 -
[86] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Conflict requires committal of force With this particular part, I agree entirely, which is why to aggress sov it should require commitment.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Only your own risk aversion and threshold is stopping you from heading out and kicking doors in (instead of doorbelling). Why would we take more risks and commit our forces while we can be attacked by people requiring no commitment and can be better off simply defending against them.
It's not risk aversion, It's common sense. It's why a highsec freighter will freighter though all highsec systems rather than opt for a slightly longer route which detours through lowsec. It makes no sense to do it the other way.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sometimes I wonder if YOUR goal is for everyone to go blue, and that is fairly demonstrably exactly what you have been doing for quite sometime. I'd love to see people fighting a bit more and having less non-aggression pacts and the like. The problem is there's no benefit for doing so.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 10:22:35 -
[87] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Sometimes when I read posts from people like you I wonder if your end goal is to kill off EVE altogether. Just nullsec. Maybe just us. Same thing isn't it? Sometimes I make up 0.11% of the logged in server population on my own, and not right after downtime. I'm pretty sure if they got what they wanted and we all left EVE that CCP would run out of budget to keep it going.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 10:29:31 -
[88] - Quote
I'm now 100% certain you have no idea what you are talking about. Even with the new system the only way to take sov from a large entity is through an enormous battle. The only difference is you can now poke sov with a stick and run away. They replaced structure grinding with structure mining and in the process forgot that sov is an alliance level activity, not a solo player activity, that's all. CCP are remaining pretty quiet on it, I imagine because they're trying to figure out who to fire.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 11:11:39 -
[89] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Even with the new system the only way to take sov from a large entity is through an enormous battle. Lucas Kell wrote:They replaced structure grinding with structure mining and in the process forgot that sov is an alliance level activity, not a solo player activity You realise these are oxymoronic, right? Only if you're a moron.
To actually take sov from a big entity, the big entity will defend their space and thus a big battle will be had. Regardless of what system is in place, if a fight will take place between the opposing sides, the larger side will escalate it to the size they need to ensure victory.
To contest sov however requires one person in a frigate. Previously it required a bunch of high DPS ships to shoot at a structure to set it's timer, which indicated that the attacker wanted to fight for the space. Now it's a solo activity requiring no serious commitment. They won't be able to take the sov because they aren't big enough to fight for it, but they can attempt to contest it over and over again requiring a response each and every time.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 11:21:16 -
[90] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:So how do you explain MOA taking two unused systems from TNT with 20-25 man dessy fleets? Unused systems. I assume we are talking pure blind? That's renter space that will eventually need to be GSF owned. You guys are effectively lending us a hand by grinding down the sov so it can easily be taken over when GSF get a moment to take it. CCP haven't put in a way to transfer sov between entities yet. Be serious, you didn't really think you can just waltz in and take sov from a coalition if we wanted to stop you, right?
Akballah Kassan wrote:BTW we had another skirmish dance in TNT space yesterday. We started out with our usual entosis/corm support. CFC formed a small Cerberus fleet with Logi to fight us. We ran back and reshipped to Ishtar's with Logi and a 20 minute skirmish ensued with a few losses but Logi on both sides keeping most ships alive.
Then CFC jump in 15 Supers and the conflict ends. I've no complints about that tbh but I find it amusing that TNT can't seem to take us on without Coalition level support. Can't, or simply have no interest in it? Like you said, you're attacking unused space. Why fly a bunch of ships all the way over there when GSF are close enough to blob you? It's what blues are for bro, learn to meta.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 11:25:49 -
[91] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:1)Initiating aggression on sov does not require much aggression, true. However maintaining that aggression is commensurate to the defence fielded by the defender. From a design perspective this is expedient, and also coincides with the jump fatigue as both aggressor and defender must be careful how much they commit so as to not make themselves vulnerable at the point of invasion as well as in other systems. Which results in both sides refusing to commit = no fights = null stagnation. why bother spending all this time developing the changes to make the bad situation slightly worse?
Salvos Rhoska wrote:As to the HS freighter example, it does make sense to pass through LS if you do your research, choose your moment, build/skill sufficiently, support the action with pilots, and benefit from the time saved. Risk is higher, but that is guaged against your personal benefit from the reward. Its not game mechanics that prevent you doing so, its your own choice. You misread the example. The point is the LS trip is longer, so there's absolutely no reason to pick that option over the mechanically safe option. This is the same. We have no need to add risk for less reward, we may as well just defend with damps and PVE until the end of time.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:3) Cooperation vs Conflict is an age old question, extremely complicated and very interesting in EVEs virtual environment.
Generally cooperation is preferable when faced against an insurmountable force, or which otherwise is too costly to engage, and in the absence of overriding moral obligations or resource requirements that make co-existance unacceptable. In terms of game mechanics, restricting the amount of superiority a more powerful entity can commit to one (and preferably more) conflict points alleviates the first condition for co-operation as above, against an insurmountable force. It also strategically creates opportunities for equivalent powers to play the field for advantage at times of weakness in the opposition by engaging on multiple fronts without being overly concerned the defense will field overwhelming force at any given conflict point, especially in more remote areas. Cooperation is always preferable, that's been proven. Moreso now we can put more people in less space.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 11:27:48 -
[92] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: Clearly the community does agree with me. 50% of all anti Fozziesov posts seem to be from you alone. Take your squealing away and I'd say more people are in favour then against. Feel free to get me the concrete stats on that. The vast majority of posts I've seen in all these threads combined has been that this change is bad. Most of the people suggesting it's good have been MoA or NPC alts.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 12:56:45 -
[93] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:1) Yes, I misread your HS freighter example. But I dont see how your example of a pilot choosing a route through a longer LS route,rather than a HS on, made any sense or context to anything weve discussed.
My reading of it as comparison between a pilot choosing to shortcut through LS rather than a longer HS one, makes sense in this context, as it relates expediency to risk and preparation as a matter of choice primarily, rather than game design. Because you're suggesting that null players opt to play in a riskier way which takes longer and decreases their rewards. Nobody would choose that because it makes no sense.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:2) Cooperation is not always preferable. This is categorically false. I already outlined and expressed specifically instances in which it is, and the conditions which then make it preferable. In no way, shape or form, has cooperation been "proven" preferable. Of course it is, because 2 people can do more than 1, 3 more than 2, etc. And it's proven by the fact that cooperative groups lead null. Even proviblock is built on cooperation. The only time we've had any noticeable damage done to us have been when other groups have cooperated and fought against us.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You agree that commitment to conflict is key to sov mechanic changes.
Yet you argue cooperation is always preferable. I agree that it should be key to sov mechanics changes. The way the current mechanics are, it's not, and cooperation is definitely a better choice under the new system. By agreeing with other sizable powers that taking sov is off limits (no invasion policies) we can all reap rewards with lower risk. I believe the mechanics should make conflict not just required to contest sov, but preferable to live in it.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Following from that, the means to de-incentivize cooperation, which as you agree is resulting in lack of conflict systemically, is to asymmetrically make it more possible for smaller entities to engage, destroy and/or aquire elements of a larger entity, without the larger entity being able to deploy iits full force against them in any given conflict point. To problem with that is that anything a small group can do a large group can do too. Make it too easy to contest sov and we can all do it. And regardless of how much you contest it, you can't take it without a brawl if the defenders want to keep it, and so the defenders still deploy their full force.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: I think we are finally reaching the point of realization, that large (especially collosal powers) should perhaps have to deal with some additional conditions and complications that smaller ones dont. First off, why? Effectively you're saying "you don;t play like I do, you should be punished". Secondly, how would that prevent people from simply breaking into smaller groups and still cooperating. There's no way to stop players helping each other out short of turning it into a single player game.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6548
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 13:04:53 -
[94] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Akballah Kassan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: Clearly the community does agree with me. 50% of all anti Fozziesov posts seem to be from you alone. Take your squealing away and I'd say more people are in favour then against. Feel free to get me the concrete stats on that. As of post #645 (this post), SpaceMonkey's Alliance has made 108 posts in this thread, meaning that posts by members of SpaceMonkey's compose 16.74% of the thread. Of those 108 posts, you have made 94, making you responsible for 87.04% of SpaceMonkey's total post count and 14.57% of the thread overall - to simplify, just over one in seven posts were made by you. It's not quite half but it's a significant contribution. I'm almost certain your word count is significantly above the average for this thread but honestly I can't be bothered to check, as most of what you write is wrong. Congrats, you can use eve-search (and prove yourself wrong I note), which also states that 13.6% of the thread is MOA and 29.9% are NPC players. And this isn't even the only thread on the forum, let alone the only point of feedback available. Please feel free to collate each individual viewpoint if you want, but by simply reading the responses to the sov change and looking and the shocking lack of increased subs (which you would expect a sharp rise from such a major change), as well as the drastic reduction between this years null activity vs the same time last year, and it's clear the mechanics are disliked by the majority. CCP being oddly silent on it is a pretty telling sign too.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6549
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 13:43:37 -
[95] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:You realise that none of this actually proves the mechanics are in any way flawed, just that nullsec dwellers don't like them, right? When the main goal of the changes is to make the system for fighting over sov to be entertaining for both sides, then yes, people discussing how insanely boring it is does mean they are flawed. Note that no (or I'll say "few", because while I haven't seen any, some may exist) nullsec dwellers are saying "I don't like these because they make it hard to defend my space" which would be understandable and expected from a change like this. Instead they are saying "this is so boring I'd rather avoid the mechanics as much as I can without affecting my ability to defend".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6549
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 14:20:29 -
[96] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:That's the problem though. Only people with your playstyle think its gone 'way too far'. This is hardly 'grr goons'. I was in CFC for a long time. If you don't realize how much your coalition is causing stagnation in the game, there isn't much hope for you. It isn't about 'grr goons', its about realizing what the true problem with lack of content is. Of course that's the problem, the mechanics are boring and the people suggesting they aren't are only doing so because they're having a whale of a time watching sov nullsec dying because they don't actually live there.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You want more fights? Have SMA set the imperium to red. I promise you will get fights. LOL, so when sov was "too hard" because you guys refused to work together, it was all about CCP changing the mechanics to make it easy for you. Now they've changed the mechanics and it's insanely boring, even though you still can't take sov, it's still up to us to fix the fact that CCP can't design games.
It's not going to happen. We're happy to sit here making isk hand over fist while the game hemorrhages subs. It's not up to us to fix **** mechanics and if CCP decide to ignore the majority stating that these mechanics suck (unlikely) that's not our problem. I'm not going to choose to play in a way I don't like just because CCP can't figure out how to drive conflict.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6549
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 14:36:45 -
[97] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Choosing a longer LS route rather than an equivalent HS route makes no sense, whereas aggressing a sov sector with sufficient force to overcome occurance of local defence makes emminent sense and is ALWAYS required in the old system and new. Except what you guys are suggesting is that we give up what we have (less reward) to travel into enemy territory and attack their sov (more effort & risk). No sane person will make that choice, since it's dumb.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Which supports and carries my point.
That the means to and for conflict overcame the "bending of knee" in cooperation to you, in favor of cooperation with someone else so as to engage in conflict with you. Not really, since they received very little out of it. Had they cooperated with us they'd have achieved a lot more.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:True, and well said. And extremely wise and equitable in the current system.
But ironically, exactly the reason you dont have the conflict you crave.
Your ideal that "cooperation is always preferable" leads directly to less conflict. Which we're fine with. If CCP want to actively drive a lack of conflict by implementing **** mechanics then I'll ride this wave all the way to the beach and watch it crush the game. To be honest, I pay with PLEX and I don't even remotely care about the continued existence of this game. It's fun to play, but if CCP want to ignore common sense and drive the game into the ground, it's no skin off my nose. It'll actually be slightly funnier if they do it while we repeatedly explain to them what the problems are.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Yes.
And?
Whats the problem with that? Nothing, but then you have to ask, if this new system still means that large coalitions can bully people out of space with brute force, what's the point? They may as well have just made lowsec better instead.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:A) Its not punishing people for playing as they want, its simply restricting the means of larger powers to bring fullmforce to bear on smaller aggressors, so as to enable feasible aggression You want conflict, the only way that will happen is by incentivising smaller powers to aggress. The only way to do that is by systemically/mechanically impairing larger forces fo bring their full force to bear.
Im perplexed, Lucas.
Are you really just a mouthpiece for a political position assigned and designed to forestall change, or do you really want a solution (and are prepared to make compromise) inorder for that change to happen? Sure it is, since there's no way except though punishing an alliance for being too big that you could stop them bringing a bigger force.
And no, I'm all for change, I was even for these sov changes, but we raised all of these current problems months ago and still they release the system overly focussed on allowing trolls, far too boring to want to engage in and without a meaningful way of promoting conflict as the optimal choice.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6549
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 17:01:26 -
[98] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:To be honest, I pay with PLEX and I don't even remotely care about the continued existence of this game. This doesn't mean CCP get any less money. It simply means they don't get your money, which, if you really think about it, means they're less obligated to make you happy. I get that, my point was that because I'm not pouring cash into the game, it will have less impact on me if the game implodes than if it were something I were paying for directly.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6550
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:32:03 -
[99] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:After several weeks of playing around with fozziesov the only changes I honestly think needed are -
Entosis on cruiser or bigger hull and entosis burns out if you leave the area without completing a cycle.
10 nodes spawned throughout a constellation to contest if system becomes vulnerable. A new one spawns to replace any captured node.
System status reset after a certain time if attackers don't complete the job. (say 48 hours)
That is it TBH.
The mechanics haven't really been tested beyond 'trolling' so far and I think the principle behind them is sound enough. I would readily agree with all of this.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6550
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 19:37:13 -
[100] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It's not going to happen. We're happy to sit here making isk hand over fist while the game hemorrhages subs. It's not up to us to fix **** mechanics and if CCP decide to ignore the majority stating that these mechanics suck (unlikely) that's not our problem. I'm not going to choose to play in a way I don't like just because CCP can't figure out how to drive conflict. I'm not sure why you would think that. I quit null because of how boring it is, ISK be damned. If you're putting making ISK over having fun and actually enjoying the game, you're wasting your time in EVE, and you're the exact problem with the game ATM. Stop blaming CCP for you causing stagnation and a lack of content. I'm not putting making isk over having fun, I have fun doing things that make isk. Quite honestly, very little of what I do to make isk is even tied to null these days, since highsec trading is so much more scalable when you have a lot of isk floating about. But I know that the null alliances as a whole will readily rat until the end of time and get their conflict needs through roams, NPSI fleets and ganks, rather than give up what they have to make up for the mechanics being broken. The great thing about EVE is you don;t need to be tied to only one style of play.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6550
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 20:33:19 -
[101] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I'm not putting making isk over having fun, I have fun doing things that make isk. Quite honestly, very little of what I do to make isk is even tied to null these days, since highsec trading is so much more scalable when you have a lot of isk floating about. But I know that the null alliances as a whole will readily rat until the end of time and get their conflict needs through roams, NPSI fleets and ganks, rather than give up what they have to make up for the mechanics being broken. The great thing about EVE is you don;t need to be tied to only one style of play. Having to *work* to hold player owned space that you voluntarily chose to live in isn't a broken mechanic. It's a fix to the broken mechanic of sov null being the area of EVE that gives the most payout for the least amount of risk. Just because living in space you voluntarily chose to own is now more difficult doesn't make a mechanic broken. It is when you consider their #1 goal was to make both attacking and defending sov entertaining for all. It's not entertaining, ergo it's broken.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6550
|
Posted - 2015.08.10 22:17:47 -
[102] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It is when you consider their #1 goal was to make both attacking and defending sov entertaining for all. It's not entertaining, ergo it's broken. Can you quote where that was the goal? The goal IMO was to make it so that you had to *think* about where you live, and that it took effort to hold your space. The #1 goal was to make EVE seem big again. Also, it is HIGHLY entertaining. I can link you to where I answered that exact question this morning.
And you may find it entertaining, it clearly isn't for both sides.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6551
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 06:59:03 -
[103] - Quote
Loneball wrote:the ol' double post proving how unaffected I am routine
Lets see how this plays out cotton I think you'll be sad. Seeing the sheer number of "fozziesov sucks" posts on reddit and the responses from CCP Falcon, it's clear they are rapidly looking at how to fix the broken system. I'd be quite surprised if they don;t do things we have suggested, such as increasing the minimum ship size for entosis links, burning out entosis links that go out of range and resetting systems where node have spawned but no attackers have gone after them.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6551
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 11:24:48 -
[104] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:mydingaling wrote:There is no place in 0.0 for NPC protected stations. This is the end game of eve online brutal space mmo. 0.0 is player owned, player run. The sov in NPC 0.0 should be contestable, take the npc station you get benefits of the missions and rewards. NPC 0.0 distorts the endgame landscape.
Furthermore the next difference in 0.0 to the rest of eve is bubbles. Yet we have ships made immune to their effect. So why even bother having 0.0? Might as well be high/low sec.
Not only are these 2 issues generally annoying as f*ck it makes many other ships and deployables redundant.
If MOA or the likes want to do gorilla warfare thats great, use pos, deployable structures and ships like blackops that are designed for that. Allowing you to base from an invulnerable station with your uncatchable ships trolling sov is just ****** game design. The barrier of entry is far too low for the end game of eve online.
This is 0.0 and there should be no hand holding. Translate - PLZ CCP get rid of MOA cos we can't rat in peace and we can't hell camp them out of the game. Is this you admitting that MOA wouldn't be able to survive if you didn't have highsec stations in null sec?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6554
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 14:07:19 -
[105] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:Tell you what, if you CFC dudes hate having NPC space nearby because it affects your isk whoring then START A WAR and seize somebody else's space that you think will be more amenable!
Perhaps then you might get some enjoyment out of the game instead of whining all the time. We don't mind, I just find it funny how you claim to be so powerful yet require what are effectively highsec stations because you're too weak to hold your own assets.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6555
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 21:50:33 -
[106] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I can link you to where I answered that exact question this morning. And you may find it entertaining, it clearly isn't for both sides. Ganking isn't entertaining for both sides. Playing test the loot fairy with BRs on jita undock isn't entertaining for both sides 20 v 1 engagements in LS isn't entertaining for both sides BLOPS aren't entertaining for both sides should I go on? Let's get rid of all of those then, if 'entertaining for both sides' is really a goal. Think before you talk. That's all entirely irrelevant. CCPs stated goal for this development is to ensure both sides of the mechanic are entertained by it. Whether or not there are other mechanics in the game which bore one side doesn't change the fact that their new mechanics failed in it's primary goal.
What that about thinking before we talk?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6555
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 21:53:58 -
[107] - Quote
Icycle wrote:I just find it amusing and woring that you want to change all this so that you can finally get rid of us. Nobody has suggested that to get rid of you. I do find all of this telling though. You guys are basically admitting that if MOA couldn't have high sec stations in null sec, you'd not even be able to survive.
Eli Stan wrote:It's a balance of risk vs reward. There's less risk in living out of an NPC station in null because it can't be destroyed, but there's less reward as well since NPC systems tend to be very ISK-poor and can't be upgraded with IHubs. In our home system in Syndicate we might get a DED site or combat anom every couple days, for example. Like lowsec, the draw of NPC null is simply the enjoyment of PvPing. Unlike lowsec though, PvP in NPC null doesn't have to concern itself with sec status, sentry guns, reds and the like - everything is a potential target. Plus with bubbles, billion+ ISK pods are a lot less common making for a tiny bit more level playing field. Except of course all of the missions as well as the fact that you can live in an NPC station yet use decent sov null space around it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6555
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 21:59:21 -
[108] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
CCP never stated "entertaining for both sides" as goals when developing the mechanics for the systems you mentioned. They did for this iteration of sov. It has clearly failed.
As we have said time after time (after time) after time, reduce the systems you hold to a number that you can ACTUALLY defend and you would have some fun. It isn't a failure when the only issue here is alliances trying to hold dead systems that have no actual activity. Working as intended. We can defend our systems. As we've said time after time (after time) after time, the mechanics to contest sov are boring. We know it, you know it, even CCP knows it (go read reddit, they are responding more there). It has nothing to do with undefended sov, mining structures just simply isn't good gameplay.
And no, not working as intended. Failing the #1 goal of the mechanic is not "working as intended".
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6557
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 18:24:47 -
[109] - Quote
John Wolfcastle wrote:I think that this new sov system was intended also to "break" the big powers of eve and give smaller entities the opportunity to move in Nullsec (hence increase nullsec pop). It did work on my part, as I am no longer in need of big ass fleets rolling over the place and scratching the nameplate of the stations with their laser. You say that now, because you've just taken 2 systems from a group who are far too over exspanded to hold it, but what are you going to do with your new space if noone kicks you out of it? I mean at some point you have to realise the truth that a 100 man alliances is going to be prime farming material and people will just steamroll through your space. The only way you guys will hold space is it other people allow you to hold it.
John Wolfcastle wrote:Some ally member are moaning that this new system actually makes it impossible to attack a heavily used (and therfore defended) system. Numbers has been called like 60+ min entosing a system, no matter what ship you have on that, you can't keep the attack going at this moment, in a ceptor, you have to get once caught and blapped (probably possible), in a BS, you COULD try to active tank it, but that won't last long either. Only solution is having multiple entosis links running, which then totally overthrows every larger fleet doctrins (remote rep anyone?). It makes it hard to attack a defended system when you use one guy. Doesn't really matter how defended it is if someone rolls in multiple fleets larger than your alliance to take it, just like the old system.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6557
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 18:39:01 -
[110] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas, with all due respect, at 14.5% of total posts (108 out of a total of 753) in this entire thread, don't you think its time for you to give it a bit of a rest and allow other people to express their opinions without immediately trying to spin them? Nope. There's a block button if you don't want to see my opinions.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:John Wolfcastle wrote:*watches completly confused and unsure if I stick to my initial thoughts to sov  * No need to be confused, has nothing to do with you. Lucas Kell has been spamming the hell out of this thread and attacking anyone's opinion which does not agree with his own purposes since its start. You can see the thread stats here: http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/437389-1 It's not spamming, there's simply a lot of people to respond to, especially with MOA getting an official CTA to come and **** up these threads. I know you'd prefer it if you could just say what you thought then have everyone shut up so you could get the last word, but it's not going to happen. Now if you continue to turn this thread from a peaceful discussion on sov mechanics into you personally attempting to troll me, I'll have to use another forum feature.
Edit: bear in mind you've racked up 6.6% yourself and most of what you've been saying is telling people like me that we're "arguing wrong". You don't even use the sov system.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6557
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 18:57:34 -
[111] - Quote
John Wolfcastle wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas, with all due respect, at 14.5% of total posts (108 out of a total of 753) in this entire thread, don't you think its time for you to give it a bit of a rest and allow other people to express their opinions without immediately trying to spin them? *watches completly confused and unsure if I stick to my initial thoughts to sov * Anyway, back on topic. So yeah, what I was saying above is that as a new sov holder you're going to have a certain view of it, but consider if it was that easy for you to take sov, how easy ill it be for a larger group to either take it or simply prevent you using it. That's once of the problems with the entire concept of sov, is that the easier you make it for the small guys, the easier it is for the bigger guys too. This is why I think there should be more emphasis on the occupancy side of sov and less on the "mining structures" side.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6560
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 19:50:37 -
[112] - Quote
Those stats mean literally nothing. Your argument for why you think fozzisov is so weak, the only argument you have is "you post more than I'd like". Look at the other threads on this. Look at the multiple reddit topics being raised on the same thing. The general consensus is fozziesov = boring. Even CCP themselves have commented on it on reddit.
This is going to end up yet again as one of those things where CCP makes changes most likely in line with what people like myself have been suggesting, then you lot act all surprised and pretend it's some institutional bias, when really it's just because you haven't been paying attention.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6560
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 20:20:54 -
[113] - Quote
At no point have I threatened or harassed you. I've asked you multiple times to keep the thread on topic and you seem to be unable to do that. If you have a problem with my posts, block them. IF you have a problem with me, report me. But keep the thread on the topic which is sov mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6560
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 20:43:06 -
[114] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You have threatened me twice here and again in mail.
You escalated your threatening behaviour here into in-game mail harassment. This is as far as I'm willing to read of your post as it's clear it's off topic already.
No, I did not threaten you. I simply told you in advance that repeatedly posting in a thread about sov you opinions on my posting style would be reported as off topic, as that's what it is. When you still actively refused to stay on topic I mailed you the same so I wouldn't be assisting you in derailing this thread. You have posted many of your opinions on sov and I've not suggested any were off topic, but when your posts move from about the topic to about your opinion of the poster, that's off topic and thus not suitable for the thread.
I am not going to continue this discussion here and will once again report your post and my own as off topic, and I will continue reporting every further post that remains off topic for this discussion which is about sov mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6568
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 13:45:55 -
[115] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:We can defend our systems. As we've said time after time (after time) after time, the mechanics to contest sov are boring. We know it, you know it, even CCP knows it (go read reddit, they are responding more there). It has nothing to do with undefended sov, mining structures just simply isn't good gameplay.
And no, not working as intended. Failing the #1 goal of the mechanic is not "working as intended". Lucas, I've been in SMA. There are many, many (many) systems that are 100% uninhabited. You can't defend your systems at all. Shrink so that you only live in the systems you can defend and it won't be boring. How many systems do you have with less than five active daily PvP pilots? Looking for an exact number here. Of course we can, that's why we're not losing our systems. Defending is easy, it's boring, but it's easy. And every alliance has systems they don't constantly inhabit, they're called pipe systems and they generally suck.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6568
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 12:49:41 -
[116] - Quote
Xan Auditore wrote:MoA has now successfully captured 3 systems from the imps. Last night we successfully defended one system from goon invaders. You know you won't actually keep those systems, right? All you've done is come in while systems are being transferred between TnT and Goons and swiped a couple of systems when they were vulnerable. You don't seriously think you have a hope of holding them when the Imperium actually come to take them, right? There's a reason you live in NPC space and don't hold and utilize sov. Most of that is down to what you laughably call your leadership and the fact that your alliance requires donations to survive.
Xan Auditore wrote:The fact is with the new system the goon tactic of "blue balling" just doesn't work. Of course it does. The actual mechanics to change system ownership have changed, but battle mechanics haven't. If anything it's now easier to blueball, since it requires less ships to threaten sov, whereas before you had to make it look like you were going to send a fleet. The only reason bluebllaing is happening less is that nobody can be bothered to have a serious fight over sov now that the mechanics suck even more than structure shooting.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6570
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 14:13:04 -
[117] - Quote
Xan Auditore wrote:Ha ha, tell that to the goon fleet we slaughtered when they arrived to finish their "transfer". I very much doubt it was a "fleet". Tell me this. do you honestly expect to hold that sov for a significant length of time? It's a simple question.
Xan Auditore wrote:Yes we do get donations, and recruits too, all thanks to the wonderful reputation you goons have made for yourselves. Eve is like a small town. Do you really think you can get away with the crap you do? I know it might work for you guys in real life... (i.e. the eve monument) ... but there are people in game willing to do whatever is needed to watch your self proclaimed "imperium" wither away and die like so much space dust. Is there anyone more fun to shoot than a goon? I doubt it. Lol, and what exactly is that "crap" we do? You mean playing a video game for entertainment? I know you have this idea that we're some evil dudes hell bent on wrecking eve, but that's just you sucking up propaganda. Most of the changes that have been damaging to us we have actively pushed for, including these sov changes. We're here to have fun in a game which some of you seem to take as seriously as a career. If you're plan is to make that "wither away", you might want to give that up before you waste your life like your boss does.
As for the monument, that was a couple of idiots, not the entire group. Are you saying if some douche you don't even know in MOA decides to go out mugging people then we should just label you all as muggers?
The problem is these sov changes don't actually make it harder to hold space for groups like ours and are dull to play with from all sides. You like it right now because you still believe gen eve and gevlon when they tell you that you're destroying the "ebil goons", but eventually you'll realise that you're making less of an impact now than you did before the changes.
Xan Auditore wrote:So now we have fozzie sov, which gives power to alliances that are active as opposed to just wealthy, large, and vastly inactive. What about groups like us, wealthy, large and vastly active?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6572
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 16:13:58 -
[118] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Of course we can, that's why we're not losing our systems. Defending is easy, it's boring, but it's easy. And every alliance has systems they don't constantly inhabit, they're called pipe systems and they generally suck. Asking yet another time. How many systems do you have with less than five active daily PvP pilots? First off: Ask CCP. We don't have stats like that.
Secondly, why do only PvP characters count? Using a system includes PVE.
Finally, it's irrelevant, since we're not losing systems so we obviously have enough people to defend the ones we have. You claim we can't defend them yet we obviously can otherwise we'd be hemorrhaging systems left and right.
It amuses me that you keep asking that as if you've somehow caught me out. Like the reason the mechanics are boring is because we may have pipe systems with few people in them and not because CCP made using mining lasers for structures the way to take sov.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 16:41:41 -
[119] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote: Any and all good improvements will, de facto, hurt you more than anyone else
There is no way around that. I'm in total agreement. We will and should be hurt more that others by changes to null. That said, changes should still keep in mind that:
- Sov is an alliance level and not an individual level activity
- Bringing more bros should continue to have it's benefits, and people shouldn't be punished for working together
- Above all else the mechanics should be enjoyable to interact with
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Barring one caveat, which is revolutionary change by CCP.
But that wont happen, because you hold them firmly economically by the balls in terms of subs/PLEX, alongside enormous whining and threatening to leave the game. In other words, they want to keep the bulk of their playerbase happy, as well they should. Don't forget we've pushed for changes ourselves that have hurt us, it's not like we sit there exploding with rage every time we take a kicking. There's been so much feedback about this one simply because the mechanics aren't fun to use and to be quite honest, while it's made people feel like they have a hope in hell of taking sov, it's only further entrenched the large null groups.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Also, your function amounts to that of a talking head and a spin doctor. Deliberate and persitant disruption of any and all concerns against your overlords is your job, while they themselves remain silent and distant from dispute here. Everyone knows this about you and a few other posters. "Everyone knows" should be "Some idiots think". Those people would be wrong. Whether you'd care to believe it or not my opinions have and always will be my own, even when it's got me into trouble with diplos and threatened my membership of my alliance.
All your shitposting aside, you don't even disagree with our points of view yourself (not that the opinions of a 2 year old NPC player mean much), you've made that abundantly clear. And whether you accept it or not, from the various feedback sources it's been made clear that the general views of this change are that it needs some serious balancing to even be considered working and either way is boring to interact with. The only people in support of this mechanic as it is are "grr goons" types who think they will use it to take over null (and even some of those have since realised how bad it is).
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 16:44:58 -
[120] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Finally, it's irrelevant, since we're not losing systems so we obviously have enough people to defend the ones we have. You claim we can't defend them yet we obviously can otherwise we'd be hemorrhaging systems left and right. Not true, you can use a standing fleet to chase trollceptors from system to system and then complain that Aegis sov is too much hard work... ...or you can have active members in each system using your space. Either way, someone has to make time to chase nullified, evasion fit, disposable ships out of the system every time they pop up. It's not "too much hard work", I've not once stated that it is, it's actually EASIER to defend than dominion sov, it's just insanely boring.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 16:51:08 -
[121] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You don't know how many pilots you have in your own alliance? wow. I don't know how many active pilots live in each give system my alliance holds. You weren't asking how many people are in my alliance.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Given how much you have whined about it being too hard to defend your space, you obviously don't have enough people, or have too many systems. I take it by this you mean "zero" since that's exactly how many times I've claimed it's "too hard". If we had too many systems, we would be unable to defend them and they would be taken by our enemies. Since they haven't, that's conclusive evidence that we have enough people to defend our space. We have 4267 members and 41 systems, so an average of 104 characters per system. Sounds fairly reasonable.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Again, fozziesov working as intended. Your posts here are proof of that. LOL, "an imperium member dislikes it, therefore it is good". I don't like drinking bleach either mate just FYI. Fozziesov intended for the system to be entertaining for both sides, it failed. What's more telling is that CCP have practically admitted this is the case. I'll be shocked if most of the suggestions I've put forward (and are listed on my blog) aren't implemented before too long.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 16:57:12 -
[122] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:So far we got a lot of good fights with the new mechanics and there are more to come. It's sad to see that some represantitves of the big coalitions are seeding so many lies. That is poor. The new mechanics are great. CCPs move towards this gameplay is visionary. Nullsec has an approximate 11% decrease in kills between this month and last month, and a 16% decrease on June. Compared to last year this August is 11% down there too. Consider that there will also be no more big capital fights that end up in international non-gaming news sites, and it's hard to see how this is a good thing. I'm Imperium though so obviously I'm lying just to keep on making all that isk that I make trading in highsec.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:09:49 -
[123] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:active PvP pilots / # of systems would do. How many xed up for the last strat op? Ask a diplo, I'm a line member. I neither know nor care for participation statistics. Either way it's still irrelevant as we would have lost systems if they had been too hard to defend with our numbers.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:If it wasn't too hard (ie, already had PvP pilots in a system that is being lasered, you wouldn't be complaining in this thread. That's kinda the point. Then your comprehension skills need work. Not only have I not once stated it's too hard, I've even stated the opposite multiple times. The reason I have an issue with it is it's boring. It's like if they made it so you have to do a captcha every time you jump between systems. Captchas aren't hard, but they would be insanely boring as a game mechanic.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:It's my opinion that sov null is the safest and easiest way to earn ISK in the game ATM, so anything that moves us in the direction of nudging alliances to shrink is a positive. Well you're wrong. Incusrions hold that one in the way of straight money making mechanics by a huge margin. I make most of my isk trading in highsec, far more lucrative than any nullsec activity could dream of being. Level 5s and faction warfare both beat nullsec income too and are relatively low risk.
On top of which, fozziesov encourages alliances to grow, not shrink. The more bodies you have in the alliance the more populated and more defended your systems become. You know how the new mechanics work, right?
Sonya Corvinus wrote:The only challenging places left to live are LS and WHs. Anything that tries to make HS or null more difficult is a positive. Lowsec is less challenging that nullsec. You can dock everywhere without being locked out of a station and if someone illegally engages you on a gate or a station you get NPC guns helping you out. The only reason nullsec is "safe" is because we mitigate risk. Any section of space I live in I would be just as safe as I would take steps to mitigate the risk. If I lived in lowsec I would be marginally safer than I am in nullsec, guaranteed.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You would have fights in current sov if you un-blue a few people. That's kinda the point. Well I'm not changing the way I play, so nullsec can stagnate, die and take the game with it. These mechanics while boring are easier to ignore for the most part so we'll just make more non-invasion pacts and continue as is until CCP provides what they promised (an entertaining sov system) or until nullsec becomes such a wreck it gets removed or kills the game.
Like I said before though, CCP have made it pretty clear they agree that the current system doesn't do what it was supposed to which is why I'll be shocked if they don't put in many of the changes we've been suggesting anyway.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:06:10 -
[124] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:It seems you took two numbers from a statistic and made an argument out of it. A decrease in kills does not say anything about the mechanics or the people experiencing the new sovsystem. The decrease could have some very different reasons. Secondly there will be big capital fights. People can always escalate with capitals and they will. Your picture of the situation is one-sided and i call that lying. The new system is revolutionary and it will draw more people to this game in the long term. CCP is doing the right thing and lets people participate in sovwarfare. That is how you make a game fit for another decade. The stats are the stats. If the system promoted more fighting then they would be up. They aren't.
And while capital escalations might happen, they will be rare. None of the big groups want to play around with the dull mechanics enough to invade anyone and they certainly don't want to leave their systems with reduced defense so nullified frigates can come throw all of the timers, so you're unlikely to see many fights between two big groups escalating very far except for staged fights.
And can people really participate in sov warfare? Most small groups will be crushed by the bigger groups near them once the dust settles. Also, I don't know of many people that would say "a game where you can click a button then fly around a structure for 15 - 45 minutes? Count me in!"
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:13:22 -
[125] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Perhaps instead of coming across as antagonistic (which is expected and anticipated anyways), try instead approaching from ground of mutual interest towards others, as we have. I don;t need to. It's clear that a vast number of players have issues with the system, it's also clear that people within CCP have similar worries about it. Fixes to the system are a matter of time, nothing more.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Most of your opponents want the same thing as you do. Lol, no they don't. They want goons dead because "grr gons hat gons". My opinion would be the same regardless of my alliance affiliation, yt that's all this is seen as. I dislike the system and I'm Imperium therefore the system must be a good thing. Most of these people probably haven't tried the new system.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Lucas Kell is a hairs width from a position the majority could agree with.
Its soooo close to reaching a principle concensus and driving towards a mutual goal, together.
The problem here, is that the actual issue is superceded and obfuscated by politics and antagonism. Read my blog. Full opinion on what should change and why right there. Judging by what I've seen on other blogs and reddit, it's a pretty similar set of changes to most. These forums tend to be more of a place for people to argue endlessly in circles which I enjoy as much as the next guy, but sometimes points do need to be made.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:20:23 -
[126] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You say it's boring because you have to fly around and chase people away constantly. If there were already active pilots in each system, you wouldn't have that boredom. That's kinda the point here. Again, comprehension. I'll say it reaaaal simple.
Even if you are in already living in a system, having to fly to a structure to chase away an evasion fit disposable frigate is boring.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:If you think LS is easier to live in than sov null, you've apparently never lived there. Mechanically it is. Station are NPC owned, you have station and gate guns helping you out if engaged there and other than that it's exactly the same as nullsec. Objectively it's safer than nullsec. It's not my fault if you don't take the same level or precautions as a null player.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You aren't going to magically get a few thousand new accounts, so logic tells us that you need to shrink. You admitting you need more people under fozziesov is a good first step, though. We don't need more accounts, we just recruit people and pull in renters.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:More people or less systems = the same thing. More alliances/corps in null instead of blue-ing everyone around you would drive content. Except we'll just blue people or absorb them as renters and if they refuse we'll evict them, because that's the most optimal strategy for avoiding terrible sov mechanics. They might even keep their nametag on the space if we can't be bothered to structure mine it, but they won't get to use their space.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:For the 17th time, you are causing stagnation. HTFU, change with the game or stop complaining. I agree, but we're not going to change our playstyle any more than anyone else is going to change theirs. CCP were supposed to put in a mechanic that encourages people to CHOOSE to fight each other. What they released is an enormous pile of **** and there's no way we'll choose to use that to fight each other. Even the russians have cancelled their war.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:42:12 -
[127] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:And again, you chose to live there. If you find it boring to have to defend a system you chose to live in, then don't live in a system where you have to defend structures. Lol? So if CCP make boring mechanics, rather than say "hey, CCP your mechanics are boring", we should just move out and go do something else? In what reality is feedback bad?
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Intel channels a few dozen systems out trump any docking mechanics. You know this as well as I do. Which we put in place. Nothing stops you having intel channels. What you're saying is that we should be punished because we had the forethought to mitigate the risk of living in space with no restrictions on shooting each other. Mechanically, lowsec is safer. That's just the way it is mate.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Again, thanks for admitting setting everyone to blue is part of the problem. Stop bearing it up and set some people to red. How many times do you need to be told this? No problem. I have no issues with stating that part of the problem is that we are all blue. That's not going to change though. We're not going to fake content into the game by splitting from our friends and having little battles just because CCP can't design entertaining mechanics that we'd choose over collaboration.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Why exactly aren't you going to change your playstyle? Stop trying to force the game to change just because you are too lazy to adapt. Because why should I? Why don't you take up highsec mining? Or play fifa instead of EVE? Why should we be forced to play in a way that we don't want to just because you guys get sad when we slap our name on a system. You've already made it clear you prefer lowsec so why does it affect you how we want to play in our section of the game?
If CCP can come up with a compelling reason for us to abandon what we have, great. If they can't, don't expect us to go out of our way to resole their issues for them. We'll happily continue with adding more and more non-invasion pacts to avoid the use of these new mechanics.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 19:58:07 -
[128] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:For the last time, they are only boring mechanics to your currently playstyle. Adapt. Adjust. That's EVE. No, they are boring mechanics all round. That's why people from all over keep repeating this. Even MOA members have stated that in this thread, the most grr goons of them all. Right here, there's a Triumvirate member with the same issues. Head over to reddit and you can see heaps of people with the exact same issues.
Honestly, I don;t know how you can even suggest it's not boring. It's firing a mining laser at a structure for anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour. Defending is chasing down solo, near-uncatchable ships who can break through gatecamps and defenses with ease. There are even system that have been unclaimed for days where people simply can't be bothered to go and take them.
And mate, I get it. You don't like our playstyle. I do. Get over it. EVE is no more exclusively for you than it is for me. You're suggesting we aren't allowed to give feedback on changes to mechanics that directly affect us. You're wrong. You'll find out just how wrong when CCP make changes based on our feedback.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 20:31:15 -
[129] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:@Lucas Kell, Sonya Corvinus, Jenn aSide and other participating members of this honorable panel: What are your opinions and perspectives on this (slightly dated) vid below? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3uTVTBKb_E
Is this not content, fights and EVE at some of its finest? It's about the equivalent of FW. If you happen upon a person looking to actually fight, you might get a frigate battle. 99% of the time you'll just watch them run away the moment you show up. If you want tears and kills it's much easier to just grab a handful of thrashers and volley people off the gates around Niarja.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 20:35:30 -
[130] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:It isn't that I don't like your playstyle. It's that I don't understand why you would choose to live somewhere and not have active PvP-ers in every system you own to defend them. That's what you aren't understanding. I understand that, what you're missing is we do have active PvPers. And yet the mechanics are still boring. Why would a PvPer want to watch someone run away repeatedly? Attackers don't need to commit anything of value and can easily fit for evasion so much of the time there is no PvP being generated.
I'm getting the impression you're one of these people that believe EVE should be a career, and that someone sitting starting at a structure for 4 hours is a valid mechanics if he wants to hold space with his friends. Unfortunately it's bad game design and ideas like that will kill EVE.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 21:06:33 -
[131] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Looks like content and fights to me, de facto. Content and fights happened under the old system too. If people want to fight, they will. Now the issue is that you can contest sov without having to lay anything significant on the line.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Comparing to FW is irrelevant. No FW in null. Does not apply. Apples and oranges. No it's not. FW is a terrible system, pretty much universally agreed except by those who farm it for isk. The entosis system is basically FW in null, it's the same damn system but with a laser instead of just waiting by the node.
Salvos Rhoska wrote:The runaway factor is also irrevelant, because this guy stays and fights persistently (ofc, granted, owing to him being very good at what he does). Sure editting may have left out 100 fights he ran from, but its quite apparent he WILL engage a defender 1v1. He will, most won't.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 21:12:19 -
[132] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:That is where you are wrong. The system promotes more fighting. The numbers are decreasing because of the insecurity which come with this kind of changes. A lot of big empires consolidated their space and pulled back to observe. People are cautious with the new system, as you pointed out yourself. When you observe the changes on the sovmap you can see many new and smaller entities appearing on the map. And more smaller groups will move in. Sovspace is heavily in flux. Moving an alliance, understanding the mechanics and the warfare takes some time. So we will see even more people comming to sovspace. Concluding that the mechanics are not working in this early state is ridiculous. They are actually working very well. What? How does the system promote more fighting? The optimal strategy is to avoid fights and go after as many points as possible at the same time hoping some of them get through while running away when engaged.
The numbers are decreasing because the mechanics are boring and most people don't want to use them. There are unclaimed systems just sitting there to be taken and people can't even be bothered to take them. Even these "small groups" are starting to complain about the dullness of the mechanics, and they'll complain more when the bigger groups settle and forcefully evict them.
And no, concluding after a month that these mechanics suck is not ridiculous. Even CCP seems to agree that a lot needs to be done to fix the problems we're seeing right now. It's just the waiting now for them to decide how to approach it.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 21:23:58 -
[133] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Instalocker waiting on gate? Chase the guy? Stealthy up on him? Have some fun?
I'm starting to think you're one of those people who thinks PvP isn't a thing if you aren't in a hundred man fleet. You want risk free living without having to defend space you own? Lol, I'm just one of those guys who thinks PvP is more than chasing a disposable ship designed specifically for evasion. No thanks mate.
Out of curiosity, why is it that I live in null and you feel the need to tell me I'm doing it wrong and need to go to HS simply because I don't want to waste all day chasing shitfit frigates, yet a guy fits up a cheap disposable frigate designed from the ground up to be nullified, cloaked and evasion fit, and that's fine?
Just get over it mate. I have opinions on mechanics that directly affect me and they differ to yours. I'm not playing wrong just because I don't play your way, I shouldn't go to HS just because I don't want to **** around with crappy mechanics (and FYI, I'd be more likely to move to lowsec, since it's like nullsec but slightly safer). Game design is built on player feedback and that's what I and seemingly hundreds of others are providing seeing as we are directly involved with the mechanics on a daily basis.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:36:23 -
[134] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Because (yet again) what you find fun isn't what everyone finds fun. No, what most people are finding boring, I too am finding boring. Their #1 goal for fozziesov failed since it's supposed to be entertaining on both sides and it's not. Try actually using it, then tell me how fun it is.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You're complaining instead of adapting to something different. That in and of itself is EVE-ing wrong. R O F L
So years of people complaining about everything we did was fine, but they make a breaking change and implement a dumb mechanic (which most null players agree is dumb in it's current state) and we should just shut up?
Mate, get over yourself. You aren't involved in the system, you obviously have no clue what it's like to actually use it and you're clearly too butthurt over something to see reason. What was it, get kicked out of SMA?
Sonya Corvinus wrote:At this point I agree with this comment and/or opinion.
Good luck Lucas. I'm out of this thread. You have motivated me to buy a few ceptors, though. Ah good, another player with nothing to do with sov null mechanics is leaving the thread. Go nuts, buy loads, I'd bet that before too long they won't be able to fit entosis links though.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6573
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:38:06 -
[135] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:If running away and avoiding fights are the only things you do, you can't blame the mechanic. That is probably why the new system is boring to you. Try to commit to fights. A lot of people are enjoying the skirmishes and are having fun taking sov. The insecurity keeps people from claiming sov in various regions and some bigger entities are keeping smaller ones out, but that will change. It is funny to see how many people who are blue to half of new eden complain about not having fights. CCP will iterate on the mechanics of course but they are not agreeing on any problems some people are making up here. I can only repeat that the new system works great and a lot of the critique is ridiculous. We're not running away, that's what the attackers are doing. Defender have to commit to a fight, they have no choice if they want to keep their sov. Attackers have to commit to nothing.
And yes, CCP have made comments that seem to support what most of us are saying here. You should read reddit, for some reason CCP tends to respond a lot more there.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6574
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:35:35 -
[136] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:I find it interesting to go back and look at thread stats from time to time because they can be so telling. Really, the top poster has more posts than the second and third combined. What does that say about this feedback thread on Aegis Sov? I've invited you guys to collate the feedback from the other sources too if you want to, but no, you'd rather keep harping on about thread stats as if that means a damn thing. Honestly, it show you have no valid arguments when that's the best you can come up with.
Sonya Corvinus wrote:You're a fun person. Unblue yourself from the 50k+ accounts you are bearing it up with ATM and we can talk. until then, you're just funny.
If you don't understand that...well...not much I can do No thanks.
And I understand. You hate my playstyle and want me to play like you. Again, no thanks. Continue living in your nice, safe lowsec and leave the discussions about sov mechanics to people that it actually affects.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6576
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 12:45:29 -
[137] - Quote
Seth Kanan wrote:What CCP is agreeing upon seems to be more open to interpretation. What happened at the roundtable was bad and people even spread lies on reddit about what CCP said there. Another example which shows how biased a lot of the discussions around the new mechanics are. People have a hard time posting as CCP users when they aren't CCP. As for the roundtable "lies" it was merely interpretation, and to be quite honest, I got the same impression from it. It sounded like they were fine with the idea that you can either be an aggressor or a defender, not both, thus killing off the idea that sov holders attack each other.
Seth Kanan wrote:Nevertheless the iterations which were announced recently look good. I'm glad to see that they took care of the issues. The iterations are dire and won't cull the current drop in server population. Even the smaller groups who were originally like "yay, beat up the blobs!" are getting bored of the mechanics, and this change looks like it's shaping up to be the equivalent of a normal weekday patch rather than a release cycle.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6577
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 14:15:34 -
[138] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:
No thanks.
And I understand. You hate my playstyle and want me to play like you. Again, no thanks. Continue living in your nice, safe lowsec and leave the discussions about sov mechanics to people that it actually affects.
/sigh. you still don't understand. You chose to join a group that is blue to over 50k accounts. That invalidates your right to complain about a lack of fights. And I've been in WHs for a while now, not LS. Come on out here if you want content. Wrong. I have the right to complain about whatever I want, especially if it's changes to my own playstyle. And again, no thanks. I will continue to play in the way I want to. I won't tell you to play my way, stop trying to tell me to play yours.
And trust me, I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree with you. Accept that opinions differ.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6579
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 14:43:17 -
[139] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Wrong. I have the right to complain about whatever I want, especially if it's changes to my own playstyle. And again, no thanks. I will continue to play in the way I want to. I won't tell you to play my way, stop trying to tell me to play yours.
And trust me, I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree with you. Accept that opinions differ. Mate, take your own advice. If you didn't want to tell anyone how to play, you wouldn't be posting in this thread at all. Pot, meet kettle. What?
This is a thread about the mechanics of living in the space I live in. It's exactly the place to discuss feedback of changes to my playstyle. You don't use sov, you don't live in sov and you've made it clear you despise those that do. Your opinions of me or my playstyle are worth less than nothing.
I'm done back and forthing with you. I'll continue to hold my views and express my opinions on my own playstyle, but if you have nothing constructive to add I have no time for you. It might do you well to get over whatever butthurt SMA left you with and move on.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6586
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 10:34:02 -
[140] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:My experiences with fozzie sov can be loosely summarised thus: https://zkillboard.com/character/301445721/
It IS possible for sov alliances to deploy: we've done so It IS possible to have great fights through sov: we've done so It's also possible to survive 4 miles of freefall into a train station roof without a parachute, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to rely on that as your method of leaving a plane. Sov mechanics, like FW mechanics can be used to generate conflict if both sides actively seek it, but don't drive conflict.
Malcanis wrote:"Sov trolling" - a term used by people who think that undocking an interceptor in their prime time to defend a system is far too much to expect, but simultaneously think that it's far too little for an attacker to ante up.
If you're not going to muster sufficient defence to ward off a single ship, why would anyone bother to send more? That's not the point though, is it. It's boring to chase a ship you know is deigned specifically to evade and is disposable in the odd time it's caught. The whole idea of sov is to create conflict. With sov trolling existing, even groups who used to create conflict now opt to run away.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 16:29:08 -
[141] - Quote
From this alone everything you ever say has now become entirely irrelevant. I mean for starters, we're not 12 anymore. Secondly, it's Sun Tzu.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
|
| |
|