Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Salvos Rhoska
1221
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:01:54 -
[451] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: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. Well done, Lucas. That may not mean much foom me, but its good for the discussion.
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.
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.
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.
------------
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6518
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:05:55 -
[452] - 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!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2092
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:13:50 -
[453] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: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. 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.
If there is no barrier to entry, all you get is trolling because most people are too occupied with trolls to even think of making a meaningful attack on someone else. If I put in the effort to guard my gates, I should be able to either keep out your invasion force of force you to commit to an engagement before you get in. Right now, nobody will defend it's border because we can't catch the invading ship anyway. The defense of SOV is limited to answering the door at every ding dong ditch because we never know when it might not be a troll. No entity is currently trolling any imperium alliance for fights since they know we can form fleet at the drop of a hat that they will blueball because the large entity somehow formed a large fleet. If you are not knocking at the door for either a fight or to take the SOV, you are trolling and that is just plain stupid. Asking player to stand guard on structure is pants on head stupid. Asking them to respond to real attacks makes a lot of sense.
Burning out the mod is a penalty that make your link attempt meaningful. If you are not willing to stay in range for the whole timer, you should not knock on that door. Go entosis someone who's response fleet you can deal with.
The real issue with no barrier to entry at the end of the day is that it will be used by both side and create the worst existance for anyone in SOV null ever. You think small entity will benefit from this? The only one that will are the one just interested in trolling because the rest will get trolled all the time. Nobody will ever want to really hold SOV if they are not already big because their whole play time will be wasted on answering the door every time someone knocks and burn away. Failure to answer each knocks on the door will generate MORE doors to close after the timer of reinforcement end which mean even more stuff to deal with instead of using the space you just got and can't upgrade because you are busy running after trolls.
Many people probably think it's some Jesus feature because it annoy the current SOV holder. Just think of how much more of a PITA it will end up being for any newcomer to SOV when they get their first system and have an attack window much larger than 4 hours per day during which they HAVE to chase every trolls. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6518
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:14:37 -
[454] - 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!
|
Snowmann
Arrow Industries
24
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:35:22 -
[455] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: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.
I guess this is where we fundamentally differ.
I see the Trollcepters activity, and the defenders response, and the Trollceptors exiting without engaging as "conflict" I don't think the existence of conflict needs any actual shots fired or ship destruction.
I've always enjoyed the pursuit more in things I've been involved in. The KB stats mean little to me. I'll sit cloaked in a low sec system for hrs to get that one perfect gank.
I can see your point in wanting to be able to trap your quarry, but I think the quarry should be able to get away, if he makes no mistakes.
I just think that some players are asking the Devs to artificially limit the spectrum of warfare in specifically Sov warfare, when they enjoy a very wide spectrum elsewhere in this game. That is a double standard and is totally self-serving.
I realize this may not apply to you specifically.
I fully expect the Devs will adjust Aegis Sov at some point, but I prefer they do it in a very limited fashion in order maintain the possibility of using the full spectrum of warfare against Sov, as we do elsewhere in the game.
I would be ok with them disabling prop mods and other things to maybe curtail some of the abilities of Inties, but I don't think they should limit which ships can Entosis Sov structures.
Anything they do should be for all ships that use the Entosis links, and I feel all ships that can fit them should be able to use them.
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12075
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:44:47 -
[456] - Quote
Panthe3 Black wrote:It's FW without LP
Exactly, and I'm not just saying that because of your excellent choice of corp/alliance
The blind defenders of Fozzie simply refuse to understand what the dislike is about, they keep projecting, thinking it's about fear of losing imaginary space, or 'trollcetors'. As annoying as those are, they aren't the big deal.
The big deal is that the system is some low sec BS imposed on what is supposed to be "epic space opera" space. Its like taking the original Star Wars movies and removing all the capital ships and X-wings and Tie fighters and the Millennium Falcon and telling people "be happy, you still have Ewoks and snow speeders!". My pet name for this crappy system is "why did I leave lowsecSov".
|
Snowmann
Arrow Industries
24
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 21:56:29 -
[457] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Panthe3 Black wrote:It's FW without LP Exactly, and I'm not just saying that because of your excellent choice of corp/alliance The blind defenders of Fozzie simply refuse to understand what the dislike is about, they keep projecting, thinking it's about fear of losing imaginary space, or 'trollcetors'. As annoying as those are, they aren't the big deal. The big deal is that the system is some low sec BS imposed on what is supposed to be "epic space opera" space. Its like taking the original Star Wars movies and removing all the capital ships and X-wings and Tie fighters and the Millennium Falcon and telling people "be happy, you still have Ewoks and snow speeders!". My pet name for this crappy system is "why did I leave lowsecSov".
So, its really about the Supers not being the focus anymore? I played this game before we had Supers and it was far better without them.
Motherships and Titans should have been unique single instance items in this game.
I realize its a bit late for that, but they were probably the worse addition to the game as it was handled, and Dominion Sov only made it so much worse.
They went from glass cannons to OP required HW that could be built in invulnerable systems which only enhanced their OPness.
I personally think they should just be deleted from the DB, I realize that wouldn't be fair to the so many who have worked hard or spent a lot of RL cash to get one.
|
Salvos Rhoska
1221
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 22:09:31 -
[458] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
The blind defenders of Fozzie simply refuse to understand what the dislike is about, they keep projecting, thinking it's about fear of losing imaginary space, or 'trollcetors'. As annoying as those are, they aren't the big deal.
I wonder if discussion here is getting confused between what Sov ultimately should be, and discussion on just these recent changes. Know what I mean?
Lucas took the commendable plunge and came forward with three concise points, and also remarkably, explanations for each of them as he saw them, as to what he sees as wanting changed fromnthis last iteration going forward.
Could you perhaps take a few minutes and do the same? Would again add structure and substance to the discussion, as specific to this last change as pertinent to this thread.
By all means, if you have ze Final Solution to all Sov issues, append that to it also.
Snowman:
For contrast, your views also as an active participant would be welcome in what you see as good/bad about the changes, and where you see those going from here. Could you try to compile an itemized and numbered list of those?
------------
|
Akballah Kassan
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
38
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 22:15:42 -
[459] - Quote
So what things can Pro Fozzie vs No Fozzie sides agree upon?
1) More of an isk loss for attackers (and maybe defenders) who flee the field - we vary wildly on how much isk loss and how it should be lost but the principle is there I think.
2) Less node spawn. I think ten is a good number simply because (if I understand correctly) capturing a node increases your score by 5% from a 50/50 base. If that is the case a proper attack for sov capture can be completed by 10 entosis pilots with just one round of attacks if nobody shows up to defend.
3) The recapture of disputed sov should automatically go back to the former owner after a certain amount of time (2 days?) if nobody turns up to complete the job.
Would anybody argue against those changes?
|
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
1039
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 22:16:06 -
[460] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Panthe3 Black wrote:It's FW without LP Exactly, and I'm not just saying that because of your excellent choice of corp/alliance The blind defenders of Fozzie simply refuse to understand what the dislike is about, they keep projecting, thinking it's about fear of losing imaginary space, or 'trollcetors'. As annoying as those are, they aren't the big deal. The big deal is that the system is some low sec BS imposed on what is supposed to be "epic space opera" space. Its like taking the original Star Wars movies and removing all the capital ships and X-wings and Tie fighters and the Millennium Falcon and telling people "be happy, you still have Ewoks and snow speeders!". My pet name for this crappy system is "why did I leave lowsecSov". So, its really about the Supers not being the focus anymore? I played this game before we had Supers and it was far better without them. Motherships and Titans should have been unique single instance items in this game. I realize its a bit late for that, but they were probably the worse addition to the game as it was handled, and Dominion Sov only made it so much worse. They went from glass cannons to OP required HW that could be built in invulnerable systems which only enhanced their OPness. I personally think they should just be deleted from the DB, I realize that wouldn't be fair to the so many who have worked hard or spent a lot of RL cash to get one. Personally, I couldn't possibly care less if they removed them. Just refund all of the minerals, BPO/research cost, and hull/fit specific SP. I'd never need to buy another ratting carrier again. |
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12076
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 22:20:47 -
[461] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Panthe3 Black wrote:It's FW without LP Exactly, and I'm not just saying that because of your excellent choice of corp/alliance The blind defenders of Fozzie simply refuse to understand what the dislike is about, they keep projecting, thinking it's about fear of losing imaginary space, or 'trollcetors'. As annoying as those are, they aren't the big deal. The big deal is that the system is some low sec BS imposed on what is supposed to be "epic space opera" space. Its like taking the original Star Wars movies and removing all the capital ships and X-wings and Tie fighters and the Millennium Falcon and telling people "be happy, you still have Ewoks and snow speeders!". My pet name for this crappy system is "why did I leave lowsecSov". So, its really about the Supers not being the focus anymore? I played this game before we had Supers and it was far better without them. Motherships and Titans should have been unique single instance items in this game. I realize its a bit late for that, but they were probably the worse addition to the game as it was handled, and Dominion Sov only made it so much worse. They went from glass cannons to OP required HW that could be built in invulnerable systems which only enhanced their OPness. I personally think they should just be deleted from the DB, I realize that wouldn't be fair to the so many who have worked hard or spent a lot of RL cash to get one.
I've have never and will never own a super or a titan.
|
Snowmann
Arrow Industries
26
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 22:28:44 -
[462] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:So what things can Pro Fozzie vs No Fozzie sides agree upon?
1) More of an isk loss for attackers (and maybe defenders) who flee the field - we vary wildly on how much isk loss and how it should be lost but the principle is there I think.
2) Less node spawn. I think ten is a good number simply because (if I understand correctly) capturing a node increases your score by 5% from a 50/50 base. If that is the case a proper attack for sov capture can be completed by 10 entosis pilots with just one round of attacks if nobody shows up to defend.
3) The recapture of disputed sov should automatically go back to the former owner after a certain amount of time (2 days?) if nobody turns up to complete the job.
Would anybody argue against those changes in principle?
I think those would be fair in principle.
for 1) I would prefer the low side in isk loss / investment required though, to keep barriers to entry lower.
for 2) Could this be tied to the Defensive Index in an inverse manner? Low activity spawns a lot, High activity spawns less?
for 3) this seems reasonable
in addition:
4) I like the idea of requiring more simultaneous active Entosis links to challenge Sov in a higher Defensive Index system.
|
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
1040
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 22:36:07 -
[463] - Quote
Akballah Kassan wrote:So what things can Pro Fozzie vs No Fozzie sides agree upon?
1) More of an isk loss for attackers (and maybe defenders) who flee the field - we vary wildly on how much isk loss and how it should be lost but the principle is there I think.
2) Less node spawn. I think ten is a good number simply because (if I understand correctly) capturing a node increases your score by 5% from a 50/50 base. If that is the case a proper attack for sov capture can be completed by 10 entosis pilots with just one round of attacks if nobody shows up to defend.
3) The recapture of disputed sov should automatically go back to the former owner after a certain amount of time (2 days?) if nobody turns up to complete the job.
Would anybody argue against those changes in principle? These would certainly go a long way toward reducing how ridiculous the system is, as it currently stands. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
510
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 22:48:14 -
[464] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: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.
Sov holders can be immune to trollceptors in pretty much the same way as highseccers can be immune to ganking.
Replace "don't fly through Uedama or Niarja" with "don't drop sov structures".
Replace "bring a webber and a support fleet everywhere you haul" with "park a brick-tanked defensive elink cruiser on your structures of note during primetime".
The counter play to ganking is not more or less boring than the counter play to trollceptors. If your argument is that having to do arbitrary/menial things best relegated to alts in order to counter game mechanics is bad for EVE, well... there's going to be a lot more to fix than just trollceptors.
|
Salvos Rhoska
1221
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 23:04:20 -
[465] - Quote
Snowmann wrote:
4) I like the idea of requiring more simultaneous active Entosis links to challenge Sov in a higher Defensive Index system.
Lucas suggested this also: "2. Full defense index should require multiple simultaneous links to get started (2 or 3)"
As I read your comment above, it struck me that this is perhaps exactly the kind of deliberate escalation which leads to larger concerted and orchestrated battles. This would be both good and bad.
Bad, because the onus of protection on key and developed systems should reside with the defender. Requiring more links on the part of the aggressor raises the threshold (but, inversly this is reciprocated by the earned and deserved higher Defence index of the target). Sun Tzu would advise against attacking your enemy where they are entrenched and strong, especially if you have to invest heavily to form your aggressive foothold as well as telegraph your commitment. So this change would advantage the defender.
Good, because this is exactly the kind of escalation which leads to epic fleet battles which, for better or worse, define EVE. Just have to hope you brought enough, at the right time, and the right stuff to the fight then, rather than expanding through less defended space.
So makes sense for gaming glory, but not so much strategically...
------------
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13991
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 00:59:52 -
[466] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: I've have never and will never own a super or a titan.
Hell, even a carrier is a coffin. It's why I made this guy, who has eventually become my main.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
400
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:20:42 -
[467] - Quote
alpha36 wrote:Akballah Kassan wrote:I think you just blew Lucas Kell's arguement about entosis wars being boring out of the water. Entosis wars are boring. ALL sov holders hate it, nobody wants to mount a new sov campaign in the current system. The only people who like it dont have sov. The map will never change, stagnation increases, EVE dies. The end. All sov holders hate a system the devs knew they would hate.
Non sov holders are using the new game mechanic designed for them to make holding sov harder for sov holders and it is working.
Working as intended then, thanks for pointing that out.
MEANWHILE.....
So you also admit nullsec was stagnate.
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.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
lord xavier
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
85
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:22:04 -
[468] - Quote
We've seen alot more content in lowsec. FozzieSov is a success!! |
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
1040
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:30:30 -
[469] - Quote
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. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
400
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:32:58 -
[470] - Quote
Kiandoshia wrote:The core point of feedback is pretty visible through all the politics and shiptoasting.
It's boring
People who like it only like it because it's boring the people they don't like =p
What you meant to say is the people that dont like it are fine with annoying the rest of new eden en maase but hate it when the rest of new eden returns the favor.
And calling out politics and shiptoasting that is coloring the kettle black.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
400
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:37:35 -
[471] - Quote
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.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
1040
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:44:06 -
[472] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 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.
No, it was stagnating; that's not up for debate. However, it has accelerated since Phoebe.
Even the Russians appear to have very little interest in fighting under this new system. Do you have any idea how ****** up something has to be for that to happen? |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
400
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:45:52 -
[473] - Quote
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:Akballah Kassan wrote:So what things can Pro Fozzie vs No Fozzie sides agree upon?
1) More of an isk loss for attackers (and maybe defenders) who flee the field - we vary wildly on how much isk loss and how it should be lost but the principle is there I think.
2) Less node spawn. I think ten is a good number simply because (if I understand correctly) capturing a node increases your score by 5% from a 50/50 base. If that is the case a proper attack for sov capture can be completed by 10 entosis pilots with just one round of attacks if nobody shows up to defend.
3) The recapture of disputed sov should automatically go back to the former owner after a certain amount of time (2 days?) if nobody turns up to complete the job.
Would anybody argue against those changes in principle? These would certainly go a long way toward reducing how ridiculous the system is, as it currently stands.
1. No, way entrenched nullsec has isk to burn and new up and coming corps wont. No ISK fights.
2. Prevent is the key not respond later, this is a central goal of fozziesov and the chief failing of the current holders of sov in their defensive posture.
3. No, if you hold sov dont be lazy put in the leg work or give up sov.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
400
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 02:56:04 -
[474] - Quote
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 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.
No, it was stagnating; that's not up for debate. However, it has accelerated since Phoebe. Even the Russians appear to have very little interest in fighting under this new system. Do you have any idea how ****** up something has to be for that to happen?
What is stopping you exactly from getting in your ships and blasting the bejesus out of your neighbor, nothing before nothing now, except you dont want to.
If you (nullsec) expect that any system is going to make you fight when you are dead set against doing so there is no such system that wouldnt be so draconian it would be hated be everyone even me.
YOU (nullsec) must take matters into your own hands and fight or continue to blame one mechanic after another as your excuse for not fighting and you seem set that the blame game is better servng your current interests ,which it probably is, to the detriment of EVE and even yourselves in the long run.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
1041
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 03:02:57 -
[475] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote: What is stopping you exactly from getting in your ships and blasting the bejesus out of your neighbor, nothing before nothing now, except you dont want to.
If you (nullsec) expect that any system is going to make you fight when you are dead set against doing so there is no such system that wouldnt be so draconian it would be hated be everyone even me.
YOU (nullsec) must take matters into your own hands and fight or continue to blame one mechanic after another as your excuse for not fighting and you seem set that the blame game is better surving your current interests which it probably is to the detriment of EVE and even yourselves in the long run.
I cannot speak for the entirety of nullsec. I can however, state that since Fozziesov became a thing, I can't be ****** to go on anything smaller than a capital fleet (which don't happen often since Phoebe) because now, subcaps generally mean babysitting Jesus lasers after interceptors run away. So, for at least one F1 monkey, the current system has destroyed any and all desire to participate in sov "warfare". I'd honestly prefer never ending POS shooting to the current sov mechanics. I am not exaggerating in the slightest. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13991
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 03:08:26 -
[476] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote: 1. No, entrenched nullsec has isk to burn and new up and coming corps wont. No ISK fights.
This kind of thinking is exactly why sov has become a trolling contest.
Because according to you, the attacker should have to commit and risk functionally nothing.
Quote: 2. Prevent is the key not respond later, this is a central goal of fozziesov and the chief failing of the current holders of sov in their defensive posture.
So then you are saying that people should be forced to babysit their structures instead of actually playing the game or using their space.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
748
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 03:12:29 -
[477] - Quote
How to fix current iterations of fozzie sov:
Make a player structure that acts like a sentry gun that can only be deployed near entosisable structures that shoots anyone entosising the said structure that is not part of the alliance owning said structure being entosised.
Viola now your trollcepter problems are solved and people have to actually commit something instead spamming inties solo. Heck it might even make the current sov trollers "group up" to actually troll.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
mydingaling
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 03:16:53 -
[478] - Quote
No epic game starts an invasion with entosising something. Epic invasions begin with **** blowing up.
The most brutal mmo in the world, eve online.
The endgame of this brutal space mmo has invincible stations, uncatchable ships and magic space capture wand devices.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13992
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 03:25:15 -
[479] - Quote
Yang Aurilen wrote:How to fix current iterations of fozzie sov:
Make a player structure that acts like a sentry gun that can only be deployed near entosisable structures that shoots anyone entosising the said structure that is not part of the alliance owning said structure being entosised.
Viola now your trollcepter problems are solved and people have to actually commit something instead spamming inties solo. Heck it might even make the current sov trollers "group up" to actually troll.
I still maintain that the entosis link does not belong on anything smaller than a battlecruiser without making serious fitting sacrifices. Cruiser should be able to, but just barely.
Battlecruisers themselves should have their command link bonus applied to handling it, making them able to fit freely while having one.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5558
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 03:44:00 -
[480] - Quote
mydingaling wrote:The endgame of this brutal space mmo has invincible stations, uncatchable ships and magic space capture wand devices. You know why? Because Goonswarm objected to the idea of destructible stations.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |