EVE Search - Share your experiences with Fozziesov!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Share your experiences with Fozziesov!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Jayne Fillon 758	Posted - 2015.07.31 16:00:54 - [1] - Quote I made my original post here but I thought it would be worthwhile to post this on the actual official forums. What I'm looking for is your experienced with fozziesov so far - not your opinions or feelings - but actual stories about what you've done with fozziesov to date. Good experiences, bad experiences, funny anecdotes.... please share them all. Thanks! Original Post Below: Hey everyone! The CSM just got out of a meeting with CCP Seagull, the Executive Producer of Eve Online. Although the vast vast majority of what we discussed is obviously NDA, one of things that came out of the meeting is that CCP is actively looking to tweak fozziesov, and is willing to have that change based on actual player experiences and anecdotes. So, as the CSM, we need YOU to share your anecdotes about Fozziesov! We'll be collecting them and forwarding them to CCP Seagull herself, as well as other developers. Has your small alliance been able to capture space for the first time ever? Are you playing World of Warships while AFK capping 800 command nodes? Has your corporation or alliance's playstyle been radically altered by fozziesov? We want to know these things, both positive and negative, so that we have real player's opinions and experiences. This will help give the CSM the firepower we need to enact real change and make the sov system better and more enjoyable for everyone. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer in the comment section below despite the NDA. A few extra tidbits: CCP doesn't like the term "fozziesov" which implies that this update has been a one man show. CCP Fozzie is the lead designer for Team 5-0, which is the team responsible for the sovereignty overhaul. There are 7 developers on Team 5-0, including CCP Mimic, CCP Punkturis, CCP Masterplan and CCP Lebowski. Anyway, this discussion is expected to continue into late august, and the CSM hopes to have the majority of sov's current pain points resolved by the next two patches. Help us make it happen! Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2390	Posted - 2015.07.31 16:04:47 - [2] - Quote They didn't go far enough F Would you like to know more?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 12018	Posted - 2015.07.31 16:09:16 - [3] - Quote Jayne Fillon wrote: CCP doesn't like the term "fozziesov" which implies that this update has been a one man show. CCP Fozzie is the lead designer for Team 5-0, which is the team responsible for the sovereignty overhaul. There are 7 developers on Team 5-0, including CCP Mimic, CCP Punkturis, CCP Masterplan and CCP Lebowski. Ok, how about "FoMiPuMaLe SOV?" I'll just copy paste my post form another thread. Overall It's not all that fun to me, the 'Focus" is wrong. It seems like something that appeals to small gang types, not "Fleet Fight" guys like me. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5931530#post5931530 Jenn aSide wrote: I understand what people are saying when they say it's too early to tell. I didn't like the idea of Fozzie sov so i've been extra careful to actually observe it in action taking that pre-existing dislike into account. That being said, I've now had a few experiences with 'Fozzie Sov', been in a few save fleets, and a few 'lets reinforce stuff' fleets in Wicked Creek, Detorid and Scalding Pass. So far it's not been almost any kind of fun, it's been a bunch of sitting around doing nothing while others SovBeam stuff, or rushing 3-4 jumps to save one of our Entosisers from something that we can't catch or kill, or fighting skirmishes against people in 'slippery pete' style tengus (ok, I admit, killing them with tornadoes that one time was kind of fun). In dominion sov at least you got to shoot something, or get some structure killmails. As useless and boring as that was, it was more fun that orbiting a gate while some dude sovlasers some crap because the people that reinforced the thing you are defending doesn't really want the space. The problem with Fozzie sov is that it's like small gang focused, as if it' was trying to import the low sec way of life to null. If I wanted skirmishes and small gang stuff i would have stay in low, what I liked about null was fleet action. I haven't seen a Capital ship in a long time now. Overall I'm still haivng fun in EVE and in null, there is PVE and Defense fleets and i join the occasional hot drop/wormhole drop fleet, but that fun used to be punctuated by the occasional FLEET FIGHT, now that isn't happening, at least where I'm at.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 6862	Posted - 2015.07.31 17:21:48 - [4] - Quote For the love of God just drop all nullsec mechanics and let the players sort it out. The citadels are a good idea, drop all the "magic" SOV crap around them. Add in more deployables to enable more f**kery. The players can and will manage SOV in ways that cannot simply be imagined. Sandbox SOV. Let's have Sandbox SOV. SOV mechanics is just another WiS endeavor soaking up resources and denying content to the rest of the game. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Get Pwned Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.07.31 17:39:33 - [5] - Quote Owning and taking sov by being afk for hours and hours orbiting a node is just too tedious, we don't want a game turning into a boring second job, I'm sure that every competent entity in the game would prefer to have the old hp grind back. Entosis links shouldn't be able to be fitted to any ships below the size of cruisers. Removing the entosis time penalty from capital ships would make suffering fatigue actually worth it. (you should be rewarded for your sp/ship price) It makes no sense to punish the older alliances who have put a lot of time and effort into gathering and building supercarriers and titans, they should be perks and not unsubed accounts. The entosis times are way too long. (42min at index 4? 10 times? are you taking a **** m8?) Should have never hit TQ in its current state, and probably never would 5 years ago.
Snowmann Arrow Industries 0	Posted - 2015.07.31 17:41:17 - [6] - Quote I hope the following things will be taken into account: No rules based system will ever have 100% acceptance. Organizations trying to hold too much space will always have grievances with the difficulty of the current system. Capital Ships should not be required to challenge Sov claims. You should be required to be active in order to defend your Sov Better organized smaller groups should do better than larger less organized groups ...Many other things said in the decision to change that should not be forgotten in order to please the masses.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1441	Posted - 2015.07.31 17:42:51 - [7] - Quote This is based on my alliance's experience in Vale of the Silent. Aegis Sov requires tedious PVE grinding. It requires the defenders to stand post for hours in order to respond to someone who will most likely run away and avoid a fight, if you actually respond. The balance is off, since the offense does not really have to commit anything to the fight in order to threaten space. Grinding up defense indexes is a tedious activity. Eve players consistently complain about the boring monotony of running anomalies and mining for hours on end, but that is exactly what Aegis Sov requires. My alliance now has mandatory fleets for ratting and mining. This has been very bad for morale and has resulted in decreased numbers in corp chat and on comms. Part of this may be bitter vets being perverse: some of the same people who refuse to join mandatory ratting or mining fleets are the same folks who complained about mandatory structure grinding fleets in the past. Actual fighting under Aegis Sov thus far has been limited to the normal small gang skirmishes against the usual suspects (e.g. good PVPers like Chessur visiting through wormholes). These are the same fights we would have had before. Almost none of these fights were caused by Entosis, or even the threat of Entosis. We would have gone out to fight these people anyway, because home defense fleets are fun. There has also been a certain amount of chasing away trollceptors - who are not looking to get into a fight or even provoke a fight. They burn off at a high rate of speed as soon as you respond. In one case, someone did actually Entosis something to the point that nodes spawned. No fight came of this, since the hostiles never came back. It just turned into a waste of time as we went around looking for the nodes and turning them off without any opposition. If someone made a real push for another person's space, brute force and numbers would win the day. Aegis Sov comes down to knowledge of game mechanics and N+1, just as with Dominion Sov. I do not really have a problem with that. In a fight between two evenly-matched groups, however, content denial is still the best strategy for contesting sovereignty (just as it was with Dominion Sov). Repeated harassment, followed by blue-balling, followed my more harassment, until they just stop logging in is the order of the day. Harass the defenders by using an Entosis link somewhere in their space. In an Interceptor, you can have an alt do this while you do something else. If they respond, burn off at high speed. You literally cannot lose your interceptor if you are paying attention. If they do not respond, then you just caused them an obnoxious number of nodes to spawn. They are forced to commit several times the effort now, or risk losing something nice. If you give them the satisfaction of a fight, you are doing it wrong. That is why I believe Aegis Sov is a failure thus far, because it does not lead to more fights. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 257	Posted - 2015.07.31 18:58:43 - [8] - Quote Jayne Fillon wrote: Has your small alliance been able to capture space for the first time ever? Are you playing World of Warships while AFK capping 800 command nodes? Has your corporation or alliance's playstyle been radically altered by fozziesov? So for the first time ever CAS owned a SOV system for a while, in Fountain. (Yes, CAS is NPC, but we do have a few alts in an alliance.) We actually claimed it under Dominion Sov when BL consolidated their space a bit and left the system fallow. But we did spend a little bit of effort defending it under Aegis Sov, without any expectation of keeping the space. Just an experiment to try out the new system. (For a small while we actually held more Sov than our friends the FIGLs. ) Since there was never much effort by others in attacking our space, nor much effort by us to defend or even live in our space (it had no outpost so there wasn't any place to stash ships as we weren't interested in bothering with POSes, we didn't bother setting up an i-hub, and it had no easy supply lines) we never got any real fights out of it. But it was an interesting, novel thing for us to try. We'll continue enjoying our little home in Syndicate, which we "own" by way of occupying it, despite it being a very low-income area. It provides great opportunities for our small-gang PvP activities. (The Yrton constellation in Cloud Ring has been interesting to watch, though. Go check out how often Sov has flipped there since, and just prior to, Aegis.)
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 22596	Posted - 2015.08.01 02:22:43 - [9] - Quote Id like to add to Jayne's noble thread a little. Do you all feel like my Narwhal game has been on point (no pun intended), or can I do better? *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*
Kant Boards GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34	Posted - 2015.08.01 06:36:25 - [10] - Quote My experience: no fights, lots of trolls, lots of interceptors, boring gameplay. Worse than Dominion.

Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5146	Posted - 2015.08.01 07:12:58 - [11] - Quote It seems to me like most people just don't understand how Aegis-sov works. Too many years of Dominion-sov where only the last timer counted, has left most people with that mindset, and dealing with the resulting node aftermath. Aegis-sov is about preventing the first timer. Messing with nodes means you screwed-up. That's just too complicated /sarcasm
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1609	Posted - 2015.08.01 08:46:42 - [12] - Quote I gate camped in a garmur for 3 hours while people did nodes.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1443	Posted - 2015.08.01 09:44:45 - [13] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: It seems to me like most people just don't understand how Aegis-sov works. Too many years of Dominion-sov where only the last timer counted, has left most people with that mindset, and dealing with the resulting node aftermath. Aegis-sov is about preventing the first timer. Messing with nodes means you screwed-up. That's just too complicated /sarcasm Preventing the first timer means no content. You are asking the defense to stand post all the time. To maintain an unrealistic level of readiness and alertness for a game. Or to blob up to the point that no one really wants to attack you (see, e.g. the Imperium). As someone who has been in the military, standing post is boring as hell. Most of the time you stand there trying anything you can to stay awake, alert, and focused. A very small percentage of the time someone shoots at you or actively tries to kill you. Frightening as that may be, it's what you live for. I've consistently trained my Marines to "be a hard target" - to never let the enemy get the drop on them, to always find them prepared. Given the choice between attacking my Marines, who were alert and heavily armed, versus the Afghan soldiers two miles down the road, who were lounging around under the shade smoking marijuana, the enemy almost always went for the Afghans. Unfortunately, it does not translate well into a game. Yet that is what you are asking the defense to do in Aegis Sov. No one seriously wants to have a go at Deklein. It's got an entire coalition crammed in and around there. The indexes are good. Poking Deklein will result in 10,000 bored and angry bees swarming after you. It is a hard target. As for getting outside the wire, the real life equivalent of a roaming gang is a patrol. Just as with standing post, most of the time it is just tiring, boring, and stressful. Patrols suck when you are out on patrol for the 12th time in a week and nothing happens, but then a friend gets shot by a sniper you never saw, or steps on an IED, laid by an enemy you never saw. Even if you find the IED before it finds you, then you get stuck with more waiting, while EOD comes out to deal with it. Once again, that does not translate well into a game. For an example of this, watch this video. If Real Life was a game, no one would play it. Games are more fun when you are getting shot at, when someone is trying to kill you. Eve is fun when content comes to you. When that WH to Thera opens up and someone comes in to kill your weakest links, then you have a good brawl with them. If content does not come to you, then you go looking for it. Your roaming gang finds an enemy ambush, or catches some careless ratter, or otherwise interacts with the enemy. Aegis Sov was supposed to promote confrontations between players. It was supposed to provide a means of encouraging the defense to undock whenever the roaming gang came through your space. For years, roamers complained that "everyone docks up and denies us content whenever we come through. We need some farms and fields we can pillage. We need someway to make them suffer for not fighting." We have that now, but the balance is off. The defense has plenty of reason to be vigilant. It has plenty of reasons to get out there and fight. The offense, however, is not forced to make any level of commitment. Part of the problem is tactical: kiting tactics are still king. Eve continues to be a game about evasion. Roaming into someone's space in Battle Cruisers or Battleships is usually a recipe for getting slaughtered. You are operationally unwieldy. The enemy can see you coming and get well-prepared to crush you. Tactically, you are also unwieldy. A more nimble enemy can dance around you and pick you apart. A stronger enemy can simply up ship you or outnumber you. So, the dominant meta for roaming gangs is agile, fast ship doctrines, built for hit and run. Get in quick, kill someone by surprise, run away before the blob can get after you. And now we have turned strategic combat into that same combat style. Aegis Sov would be great if threatening space required the offense to bring a doctrine that could not simply run away and evade combat. If you want to come to my space and make me undock to fight you, then you should have to be in a ship that requires you to actually fight me. It should be a doctrine available to any group, without the need for sovereignty to build. There needs to be a balance. If someone wants to actually get a fight out of you, they should have some means of doing that. But it has to be balanced on each side. Content denial and evasion has to stop being the best strategy. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5151	Posted - 2015.08.01 10:26:38 - [14] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Preventing the first timer means no content. You are asking the defense to stand post all the time. To maintain an unrealistic level of readiness and alertness for a game. Or to blob up to the point that no one really wants to attack you (see, e.g. the Imperium). I'm not asking anything. At ADM 6 your entire alliance can roam nearly an hour away, and still prevent a capture. Assuming there is one person per structure left in the system (occupancy), say ratters or miners, they can even prevent capture. As for Imperium defensive blobbing, that actually means they are fulfilling occupancy. It also means their defense can't roam far, even when that defense is a few super-caps that drop on anything. Of course that still leaves them with plenty of other ships because of their large membership. Getting a fight from the Imperium is easy, just don't expect to win it without effort; they aim for "gud fights" for their members and not yours. There is no game mechanic that will change that to be in your favour.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1444	Posted - 2015.08.01 12:34:52 - [15] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Preventing the first timer means no content. You are asking the defense to stand post all the time. To maintain an unrealistic level of readiness and alertness for a game. Or to blob up to the point that no one really wants to attack you (see, e.g. the Imperium). I'm not asking anything. At ADM 6 your entire alliance can roam nearly an hour away, and still prevent a capture. Assuming there is one person per structure left in the system (occupancy), say ratters or miners, they can even prevent capture. As for Imperium defensive blobbing, that actually means they are fulfilling occupancy. It also means their defense can't roam far, even when that defense is a few super-caps that drop on anything. Of course that still leaves them with plenty of other ships because of their large membership. Getting a fight from the Imperium is easy, just don't expect to win it without effort; they aim for "gud fights" for their members and not yours. There is no game mechanic that will change that to be in your favour. As an Imperium member, I resent the implication that I would ever attack the Imperium. At least so long as my corporation is part of the coalition. I am very familiar with our way of winning wars - blob, blue-ball, deny content, destroy enemy morale, win. While it often is a horrid way to play, I'm too committed to my wonderful corp mates to go elsewhere. Without the guys and gals in my corporation I would have "won Eve" a long time ago. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Awkward Pi Duolus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 137	Posted - 2015.08.01 15:23:01 - [16] - Quote It's tedious, unbalanced and very un-fun. It's terrible, and needs a serious redoing. There are detailed arguments and chronicled experiences aplenty in that Reddit thread, so I will not rehash any of it here. At the rate at which I'm seeing folks drop from the game, all this talk may be for naught soon anyway..
solrac lara The Soul Society DeepSpace. 7	Posted - 2015.08.02 03:54:00 - [17] - Quote I blow up a russian POS and i like it :D
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 6877	Posted - 2015.08.02 07:46:54 - [18] - Quote solrac lara wrote: I blow up a russian POS and i like it :D in Russia, POS blows up YOU Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 14	Posted - 2015.08.02 11:20:10 - [19] - Quote (Re-posted from another thread) We had an entosis skirmish that escalated. We started off in sniper Corms as we were entosising an IHUB. We killed a Maulus and jamming interceptor that tried to disrupt our operation. Then Goons escalated and brought a Caracal fleet, a harpy fleet and a mixed bag fleet. We burned back to our staging system and reshipped into Cerbs with Logi looking to try and defend our entosis ships and were doing well till Goons escalated with 2 Titans and a dozen or so carriers. We still had fun though, no major head on fight but several skirmishes and a few good kills (including t2 cyno fit cruisers). A few of our guys were complaining about overkill from Goons but if they have Titans and are prepared to throw them on grid fair play IMO. If they'd have stuck with the cruiser and Frig fleets we would have taken the fight but as always with CFC the strategic objective is far more important then any 'good fight'.
Fuque Sathienne GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.02 16:42:19 - [20] - Quote Fozzie sov was a good idea, poorly implemented Its stagnates null and makes it impossible for attacked to do anythign versus a defended occupied space It needs to go back to the drawing board and be rethinked

Current Habit Rusty Pricks 47	Posted - 2015.08.02 17:10:56 - [21] - Quote Better than dominion.
Harvey Skywarker Higher Than Everest Black Legion. 16	Posted - 2015.08.02 17:18:35 - [22] - Quote Please make nodes fatigue back to secure if no attacker shows up. Do this however you see fit. Please make less nodes (5 nodes = 10% instead of 10 nodes = 5%) Restrict entosis time of nodes to 15mins including warm up , only allowe defense index to affect initial RF entosis'ing. Stop the troll ceptors however you see fit. Most of all OPEN DIALOGUE WITH PLAYERS! Otherwise, system has potential.
Aerasia Republic University Minmatar Republic 63	Posted - 2015.08.02 17:32:28 - [23] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: We have that now, but the balance is off. The defense has plenty of reason to be vigilant. It has plenty of reasons to get out there and fight. The offense, however, is not forced to make any level of commitment. Evening that out sounds good in theory, but I think CCP is trying to encourage fights by making them easier to start. I have every reason to believe that there is a small group of people in CCP who put breaking up the 'blue donut' as their top priority. Phoebe makes it harder for a big coalition to drop dozens of Supers anywhere in the galaxy. Aegis builds upon the cyno nerf making it super easy to start a sov conflict, and then annoying & time consuming to defend against. I don't think this is the end either, though with how CCP moves the next steps might be long after we've all quit. I believe having a dozens of competing sov combatants is CCP's end game. How will they do it? Dunno. Maybe by making Sov even harder to keep (having an active Entosis at all times?), or making holding systems a geometric cost increase (Sov structure costs Sov^2 per Sov?), or building an anti-blue mechanic into the sov itself (gate guns that help defend sov by shooting at anybody not in the alliance?).
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 21	Posted - 2015.08.02 17:39:02 - [24] - Quote Fantastic. Fight my enemy, entosis their ihubs, stations, tcu and run when we cant face them cos overwhemling numbers. It has made the alliance more active without a doubt. We took sov just over a day. But we have destroyed some of their ihubs even thought they have retaken them. Gorrilla tactics finally works in eve. We are massivelly out numbered but we are having fun and really have a chance to face our enemy. Never the less its not been easy journey. Lots of hours entosing, lots of failures but some success too. We still are adapting and every action my enemy does we counter act it and they as well. They have used sub caps, supers even titans against us. Its very interesting the counters. My enemy has space in Pure Blind that it does not really uses or even lives in it but I controls anyway so we hit them there constantly and when not, we are hitting hunting them deep in their system with standard pvp and no entosing. Gorrilla warfare is finally here and in our alliance we had been waiting for it for months since we first heard of the changes.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2311	Posted - 2015.08.02 17:59:42 - [25] - Quote So far, lots of boredom. It beats shooting structures though. At least you can watch TV and don't have to interrupt whatever you are watching to reload/cycle/switch to a different POS gun.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 86	Posted - 2015.08.02 18:03:41 - [26] - Quote It is a good system, as it limits the abilities of blobs.. it is better than the previous system.
Gen Eve Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 31	Posted - 2015.08.02 18:14:11 - [27] - Quote FUZZISOV JUST GOT ROLLED IN AND TEARS ARE FILLING THE BUCKETS! Many big/massive alliances whining about new sov mechanics. They whining that they can't defend themselves from small groups of people. And their unused space gets attacked. They crying like babies instead of embracing the new system. FUZZ has just started and amount of fun and game content we have has simply skyrocketed 1000% for us. All these cry-baby egoistic multi-region sov holders see is way to manage other peeps, to force them to pay rent, to make isk isk isk. They ARE the reason CCP changed this game so drastically. FUZZ SOV means who ever has sov, needs to live in it and protect it, as opposed to "safely hold" sov and whoever challenges it, to blob any challenger with blob of peeps and caps/supers. STOP CRYING AND GET ON BOARD! CCP YOU DOING A GREAT JOB! NERF THE MOON MILK COWS NEXT AND FIX POSES. LONG LIVE FUZZ SOV! BEST THING THAT HAPPENED TO EVE IN 10 YEARS!!!
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 814	Posted - 2015.08.02 18:27:05 - [28] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: It is a good system, as it limits the abilities of blobs.. it is better than the previous system. You like it because you are paid to like it. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Ninjafaq MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 4	Posted - 2015.08.02 18:30:47 - [29] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: It is a good system, as it limits the abilities of blobs.. it is better than the previous system. You like it because you are paid to like it. And here comes the lemon: http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/ftpuploads/bloguploads/meme-tears-swimmer.jpg
Anthar Thebess 1248	Posted - 2015.08.02 18:42:45 - [30] - Quote It changed a lot on eve map, something what was needed , but it is just boring. No fun, just killing some entosis ceptors, capturing nodes that no one want to contest , on ******* , very annoying timers. Good direction, but very bad way to do it. Maybe leave it this way, maybe boost something else worth fighting as this game is not about chasing ceptors , and capturing nodes while you watch TV. I was always about moving away from moon mining in current form, but hell , lets double usage of r32, and r16 minerals. More reason to fight for , and there is so many of those moons that no one will try to monopolize few regions like you can do to r64 moons. But do something CCP pls. For sure make the uncontested nodes to degrade by them self Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.

Milinako Touch My Totem 0	Posted - 2015.08.02 18:55:46 - [31] - Quote [00:37:22] MASSADEATH > fozzie sov is ****
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 815	Posted - 2015.08.02 18:55:51 - [32] - Quote Ninjafaq wrote: And here comes the lemon: Yes, would you like a slice? "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Centhina MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 8	Posted - 2015.08.02 19:41:06 - [33] - Quote Aegis Sov is awesome! p.s. sorry CCP but "Fozziesov" is catchier.
Feris Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 8	Posted - 2015.08.02 20:00:12 - [34] - Quote Jayne Fillon wrote: I made my original post here but I thought it would be worthwhile to post this on the actual official forums. What I'm looking for is your experienced with fozziesov so far - not your opinions or feelings - but actual stories about what you've done with fozziesov to date. Good experiences, bad experiences, funny anecdotes.... please share them all. Thanks! Original Post Below: Hey everyone! The CSM just got out of a meeting with CCP Seagull, the Executive Producer of Eve Online. Although the vast vast majority of what we discussed is obviously NDA, one of things that came out of the meeting is that CCP is actively looking to tweak fozziesov, and is willing to have that change based on actual player experiences and anecdotes. So, as the CSM, we need YOU to share your anecdotes about Fozziesov! We'll be collecting them and forwarding them to CCP Seagull herself, as well as other developers. Has your small alliance been able to capture space for the first time ever? Are you playing World of Warships while AFK capping 800 command nodes? Has your corporation or alliance's playstyle been radically altered by fozziesov? We want to know these things, both positive and negative, so that we have real player's opinions and experiences. This will help give the CSM the firepower we need to enact real change and make the sov system better and more enjoyable for everyone. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer in the comment section below despite the NDA. A few extra tidbits: CCP doesn't like the term "fozziesov" which implies that this update has been a one man show. CCP Fozzie is the lead designer for Team 5-0, which is the team responsible for the sovereignty overhaul. There are 7 developers on Team 5-0, including CCP Mimic, CCP Punkturis, CCP Masterplan and CCP Lebowski. Anyway, this discussion is expected to continue into late august, and the CSM hopes to have the majority of sov's current pain points resolved by the next two patches. Help us make it happen! Edit: If you're wondering, the preferred term is "Aegis Sov" We got sov with a well organized fleet. We took it from players who never used the space anyway. Once we started a day l8r on more systems finally they showed up. Finally they have to show up. For years you never saw people in that space.
Minty Aroma Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 54	Posted - 2015.08.02 20:13:42 - [35] - Quote It's not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. It has generated lots of content in terms of skirmishes (usually against scrubs from NPC null for the Imperium) which have been filling up my killboard nicely. This sov system caters to the well prepared, therefore some entities with far more space than they can handle are suffering. That being said, it could be improved on. Firstly, make sov worth defending. ATM there is little difference in owning sov or just day tripping there for a bit of isk generation. There needs to be a strong incentive to take and hold a system. Secondly, if you are trying to capture/defend an area uncontested, it should not take as long as orbiting a beacon for 30mins+ with no actual content as is it just rubbish. Thirdly, the Entosis link should really have a speed modifier as the troll ceptor is still cancer, and you can make over-sized propulsion, nullified T3s using the T2 Entosis link which are also cancer. Maybe make the Entosis link block activation of propulsion modules when in use?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6736	Posted - 2015.08.02 20:48:08 - [36] - Quote trollsov has the best trollcontent ever By which I mean strategic mining ops ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 21	Posted - 2015.08.02 20:54:54 - [37] - Quote Failed attempt to bubble us by CFC. The fleet got off station and warped away. They were camping a station where our alts were. http://i.imgur.com/UMLPinK.jpg?1 http://i.imgur.com/68POKaf.jpg https://adashboard.info/intel/dscan/view/3cBiqcYa Plus another 140 + harpy fleet chasing our fleet. We killed a few straglers and went on a roam to kill their ratters in their home systems and entosis stuff. Very dynamic and fun. After several hours they got bored and jumped out the capital fleet.
WhiteCat Lavartega Polaris Rising The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.08.02 21:15:40 - [38] - Quote Fozzie sov is a good idea but implemented with boring mechanics. Usually we have stuff reinforced by totally random guys and they're not interested in sov itself but only want to spawn fights. Thats ok, but sometimes, when we dont have enough ppl/time/have another fleet, system become reinforced, so we have a timer that noone is interested in and we have to go and still capture nodes, which usually takes 1h or so. Its entertaining only for entosis ceptors, when almost entire fleet is sitting on titan and playing other games. With Dominion sov we were at least shooting stuff like SBUs and that was way better than just sitting in place and doing nothing for hour or more. Comand nodes number should be reduced or limited only to 2-3 systems. Also nodes should despawn if noone is capturing them, so defender dont have to go and babysit system that isnt atacked. Good concept guys, but we need something to make it less annoying and boring. We want fights, not sitting with on node with flashlight.
Elfiska Ministry of War Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.08.02 21:21:22 - [39] - Quote Icycle wrote: Failed attempt to bubble us by CFC. The fleet got off station and warped away. They were camping a station where our alts were. http://i.imgur.com/UMLPinK.jpg?1 http://i.imgur.com/68POKaf.jpg https://adashboard.info/intel/dscan/view/3cBiqcYa Plus another 140 + harpy fleet chasing our fleet. We killed a few straglers and went on a roam to kill their ratters in their home systems and entosis stuff. Very dynamic and fun. After several hours they got bored and jumped out the capital fleet. Came back home to find a CO2 fleet that refused to fight us and left. U mad?
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2015.08.02 21:23:10 - [40] - Quote It worries me that you have people in this thread, talking about how great this system is in public, while in private, acknowledging that it's pretty ****, even for the attackers. It's no wonder CCP can't rely much on player feedback, when they outright lie (even about their own feelings) in order to support some kind of weird narrative. I can't even call it an agenda, because it's not even serving them anything but disappointment.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 21	Posted - 2015.08.02 21:33:58 - [41] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: It worries me that you have people in this thread, talking about how great this system is in public, while in private, acknowledging that it's pretty ****, even for the attackers. It's no wonder CCP can't rely much on player feedback, when they outright lie (even about their own feelings) in order to support some kind of weird narrative. I can't even call it an agenda, because it's not even serving them anything but disappointment. Yes because it makes so much sence to do that!! Maybe i should provide recordings of us talking and laughing in fleet at CFC.
Xan Auditore MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 0	Posted - 2015.08.02 21:52:57 - [42] - Quote Fozzie Sov rocks! The goal of getting players into null sec is working really well. New corporations are moving there in droves. Not just to section 8 housing in Pure Blind but elsewhere. High Sec corporations are making plans to move to null because they believe that if they have a few active members they can compete. Goons hate it because it is a real threat to their power base... and because section 8 is a hot mess right now, half the guys in those corps are awoxers. One or two might be me. :P IMO possession is 9 tenths of the law. If you can't defend your space because your also playing H1Z1 or Battleships you don't deserve it. Move back to High Sec to go AFK. Put Null Sec into the hands of the active players. Long Live Fozzie Sov!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2015.08.02 21:58:42 - [43] - Quote Icycle wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: It worries me that you have people in this thread, talking about how great this system is in public, while in private, acknowledging that it's pretty ****, even for the attackers. It's no wonder CCP can't rely much on player feedback, when they outright lie (even about their own feelings) in order to support some kind of weird narrative. I can't even call it an agenda, because it's not even serving them anything but disappointment. Yes because it makes so much sence to do that!! Maybe i should provide recordings of us talking and laughing in fleet at CFC. You're right. It doesn't make any sense. So stop doing it. EDIT: as for recordings. I am sure that if I dig through some logs, I can provide you with stuff that makes it look like we believe that MOA is a genuine threat to The Imperium. That doesn't mean that it isn't sarcastic bullshit. ;)
Infomatrix Mystery Van Incorporated Phoebe Freeport Republic 0	Posted - 2015.08.02 22:49:52 - [44] - Quote I love the new system. It works as intended and anyone who thinks otherwise did not understand what changes were going to take place. most of the whining I hear is from people who are "used" to how things were and are upset because their playtime is getting "spoiled" by these changes. HTFU guys. The changes make you work to keep your sov, like it should be. Don't want it to be easy for someone to take your space, come up with a way (within the system) to defend your space. If you're being "attacked" by a trollceptor and you're trying to shoot it or tackle it with another ceptor or something like that, you're doing it wrong. Break his lock, force him out of entosis range. The new system forces people to think about how to best engage instead of throwing ship after ship at the enemy until they die and I don't think a lot of people like that because they are complacently lazy.
Cochise 20th Legion Mordus Angels 15	Posted - 2015.08.02 23:12:34 - [45] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: It worries me that you have people in this thread, talking about how great this system is in public, while in private, acknowledging that it's pretty ****, even for the attackers. It's no wonder CCP can't rely much on player feedback, when they outright lie (even about their own feelings) in order to support some kind of weird narrative. I can't even call it an agenda, because it's not even serving them anything but disappointment. This is the old school classic goon spin, from the days a few years ago when they were noobs in Rifters and had a real leader. As for the new Sov , so far I like it just fine!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1024	Posted - 2015.08.02 23:20:16 - [46] - Quote Infomatrix wrote: I love the new system. It works as intended and anyone who thinks otherwise did not understand what changes were going to take place. most of the whining I hear is from people who are "used" to how things were and are upset because their playtime is getting "spoiled" by these changes. HTFU guys. The changes make you work to keep your sov, like it should be. Don't want it to be easy for someone to take your space, come up with a way (within the system) to defend your space. If you're being "attacked" by a trollceptor and you're trying to shoot it or tackle it with another ceptor or something like that, you're doing it wrong. Break his lock, force him out of entosis range. The new system forces people to think about how to best engage instead of throwing ship after ship at the enemy until they die and I don't think a lot of people like that because they are complacently lazy. For my end, you're missing the point. It's not work. It's not hard. It's pathetically boring. I assure you, we are having no problem shrugging off, and laughing at any and all "attempts" at our space. That's the damned problem. Nothing has changed, except now, we get the luxury of shooting the one poor sap who got stuck there with his Jesus laser on and couldn't run away, then sitting on our thumbs for thirty minutes while waiting for the timer to tick down. If you think I am "whining" because "sov is now hard", you couldn't be more mistaken. Do not confuse tedium with difficulty. Again, the problem is that nothing has changed, except that we have a mandatory thirty minute to one hour window of sitting around tacked on to the end of every defense fleet now. This will not change until something is done to take the "runawaaaay" meta out back of the shed and put it down.
Galphii Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn 317	Posted - 2015.08.02 23:29:04 - [47] - Quote Aegisov has exposed some pretty big flaws. Veterans may remember the nano-nerf from years ago, where speed-fit kiting ships were dominant. We're back to that again. Mobility is key, which is why anything larger than a cruiser is rare in pvp. 10k/sec+ cruisers or inty's kiting nodes is the order of the day and it's frickin' tedious. During newsov development I (along with others I'm sure) suggested using an entosis link prevents you using a prop mod and that'd be a good fix to this issue. Hell, if I had my way I'd nerf the hell outta speed mods altogether in eve as it's far too easy to evade an actual fight across the board. But really, I'd just prefer to see sovless null brought in with structures and deployables providing 'mechanics'. Sandbox null as opposed to this current crap. "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Lim Yoona 14	Posted - 2015.08.02 23:33:57 - [48] - Quote From reading over this thread it seems like the only people that like Aegis-sov are those who dont have/ dont want sov
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1026	Posted - 2015.08.02 23:40:12 - [49] - Quote Lim Yoona wrote: From reading over this thread it seems like the only people that like Aegis-sov are those who dont have/ dont want sov According to EveSkunk and certain other sources, their line members don't like it either. They just seem to want to cheer it on, because they think it's their key to toppling the evil goonies, or something.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 12024	Posted - 2015.08.02 23:44:38 - [50] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Infomatrix wrote: I love the new system. It works as intended and anyone who thinks otherwise did not understand what changes were going to take place. most of the whining I hear is from people who are "used" to how things were and are upset because their playtime is getting "spoiled" by these changes. HTFU guys. The changes make you work to keep your sov, like it should be. Don't want it to be easy for someone to take your space, come up with a way (within the system) to defend your space. If you're being "attacked" by a trollceptor and you're trying to shoot it or tackle it with another ceptor or something like that, you're doing it wrong. Break his lock, force him out of entosis range. The new system forces people to think about how to best engage instead of throwing ship after ship at the enemy until they die and I don't think a lot of people like that because they are complacently lazy. For my end, you're missing the point. It's not work. It's not hard. It's pathetically boring. I assure you, we are having no problem shrugging off, and laughing at any and all "attempts" at our space. That's the damned problem. Nothing has changed, except now, we get the luxury of shooting the one poor sap who got stuck there with his Jesus laser on and couldn't run away, then sitting on our thumbs for thirty minutes while waiting for the timer to tick down. If you think I am "whining" because "sov is now hard", you couldn't be more mistaken. Do not confuse tedium with difficulty. Again, the problem is that nothing has changed, except that we have a mandatory thirty minute to one hour window of sitting around tacked on to the end of every defense fleet now. This will not change until something is done to take the "runawaaaay" meta out back of the shed and put it down. Well said. If it weren't sad, it would be amusing to watch people be owned by their own anti-Goon or anti large group prejudices. It happens all the time, some change happens that invariably helps large groups like goons, and some are so na+»ve they CELEBRATE the change because "take that, goons!!". It's not about winning sov or losing sov, it's about "this gameplay sucks, even if I'm winning. I'm not a goon. I am in an alliance and I live in null (Wicked Creek). I'm mainly a PVEr, I don't hate pvp but I don't crave it either. But of the pvp I do like, epic fleet fights are tops. most of my pvp is defense type fleets. Before, EVE had places for "low intensity/tactical warfare gameplay" (high sec wars, low sec and FW, low end wormholes and to some extent NPC null) and fewer places for "High Intensity/Strategic Level game play (Sov null and to some extent high end wormholes). Now it's ALL low intensity warfare (even in wormhole space, which is more Farmville than anything else). When it comes to PVE, I am a 'soldier' type, not a 'gladiator' type, I don't give a flying flip about demonstrating 'skill' in a video game to some other solo gamer i'll never meet, I don't care for all the rushing around trying to gain advantage or running when you can win that is at the core of solo and small gang pvp in EVE. I like the epic big fleet slugfest where systems change hand and huge space structures exploded Death Star style. At least in Dominion sov you occasionally got some of that (or at least a bleeding killmail you can look at years later and say "hey, I was there"). This 'skirmish sov' crap doesn't do it. The goals of aegis sov have had the side effect of sucking the epic feel clear out of null sec. If I wanted the pvp experience I'm getting right now, i'd have never left faction warfare. I have the advantage of being a PVEr though, so ultimately for folks like me the sov system is just something that has to be endured for the sake of having space to go kill red Xs monopoly pieces in. I survived 2 years of pos spam sov and 6 years of Dominion, I can survive this awful new system too. But the loss of the epic feel of null sec (replaced by FW 2.0, null sec addition) is felt as an actual loss.

Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 192	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:02:40 - [51] - Quote Fozziesov has made the blue circle of mindless AFK ratters and ROLFstomp the little guy blobs throw a collective hissy fit. That means it's working to me. Anyone who is against fozziesov is simply hiding in a massive alliance and wants mindless easy gameplay and mindless easy kills, instead of having to actually fight for their space. The collective tears show it is working well and they are glorious. The whining against fozziesov is similar to high sec's whining against CODE, and should be treated the same way.
WhiteCat Lavartega Polaris Rising The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:20:56 - [52] - Quote Petre en Thielles wrote: Fozziesov has made the blue circle of mindless AFK ratters and ROLFstomp the little guy blobs throw a collective hissy fit. That means it's working to me. Anyone who is against fozziesov is simply hiding in a massive alliance and wants mindless easy gameplay and mindless easy kills, instead of having to actually fight for their space. The collective tears show it is working well and they are glorious. The whining against fozziesov is similar to high sec's whining against CODE, and should be treated the same way. CSM member created that topic and they want support - people provide it. Only if its "Oh my, that new sov is great" its support, but when we pointing things that dont work well from our side, from side of people actually holding sov, its whining? Also, you dont even have balls to post from your main. Or if thats your main you should know that NPC corporations can't capture sov, so your posts here are pointless.
Tegho Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team 2	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:21:55 - [53] - Quote You have work/school? You have family/friends? You go to the gym? You have a life? Scrap all that and you too can live in EVE's amazing null sec; you'll get to block off hours every day for the possibility of a fight, where you spend a large majority of the time chasing the aggressor and you might get to shoot your guns a few times. Once that time window is up, you can go find the most useless system available and grind up that index. Better not put that in your next promo video. Of course moa loves this, they dont have to defend or maintain a single thing. CCP gave them "their space" Personally, I think entosis links should be limited to only battleships. You want to start a fight, put your neck out there and bring a group to defend it. If you can't defend a single battleship for 10 minutes, you don't deserve the space any more than people who "dont even live there". A battleship is big and costly enough to be risky, while small and cheap enough to be small group friendly. This interceptor and 10k cruiser stuff is boring. I think holding sov in aegis is best compared to being a teenager with friends over, and an annoying younger sibling. The difference is the house is now designed for the ten year old with smaller doors and rooms, and you the teenager have to do all the chores. Finish your chores and you can have your friends over; all the while, that little s%@t gets to hang around being annoying and undoing all your work, and you're not allowed to even smack them once. I think it will be interesting to hear from the people fighting over insmother, where it's sov holder v sov holder, as opposed to gevlon's little children
Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 192	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:27:33 - [54] - Quote WhiteCat Lavartega wrote: CSM member created that topic and they want support - people provide it. Only if its "Oh my, that new sov is great" its support, but when we pointing things that dont work well from our side, from side of people actually holding sov, its whining? Also, you dont even have balls to post from your main. Or if thats your main you should know that NPC corporations can't capture sov, so your posts here are pointless. I gave my opinion. If you don't like it, keep whining some more. I have three real characters and two forum alts I post with here, and I'm smart enough to know when to use alts. I'm sorry if that upsets you. Given you're someone who hides in the biggest coalition and mindlessly easy living in EVE, it's hard for me to take you seriously. Again, fozziesov working as intended. Every time I hear someone in the great blue bear doughnut whining, it's working as intended.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1027	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:30:47 - [55] - Quote Tegho wrote: It will be interesting to hear from the people fighting over insmother, where it's sov holder v sov holder, as opposed to gevlon's little children Pretty sure that all of the guys in the East have already thrown their hat into the "this **** is cancer" ring. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=437423&find=unread
Jon Eriker MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:41:06 - [56] - Quote Fuque Sathienne wrote: Fozzie sov was a good idea, poorly implemented Its stagnates null and makes it impossible for attacked to do anythign versus a defended occupied space It needs to go back to the drawing board and be rethinked Please allow me to translate the above from CFC Newspeak: The remarkable increase in dynamism and activity resulting from the sov changes have made it difficult for us CFC to maintain a permanent unchallenged stranglehold on space we don't actually occupy. We now have to work to maintain sov, and we absolutely hate it. The bulk of our membership, who should be laboring in the belts and moons, are now pressed into F1 blob service against mobile and confounding enemies. Fozzie Sov must be "rethinked" so we can eliminate this costly and frustrating activity and get back to farming our membership.
Lulu Lunette Custodes Olim United Systems of Aridia 63	Posted - 2015.08.03 00:42:18 - [57] - Quote I DON'T EVEN KNOW @lunettelulu7
Chickers Senex Legio The Old Contemptibles 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 01:13:46 - [58] - Quote I think the Aegis sov system has energized a portion of the player base, and I think it would be a mistake to quickly make changes (other than improving the experience) because the large blocs are "bored" shooting command nodes. Our group accidentally took Sov the other day, and I think once more players get a taste then there will be less trolling, and more conflict. Let it go for a while - large groups can choke on their tears. The game is different now, and finding it boring to kill ships with Entosis mods is the least of a large groups' problems. Today more than ever there is little reason for multi-alliance coalitions to exist, and soon alliance infighting will cause splinters, and from the splinters ambition, and from the ambition new stronger smaller groups. I can hope anyways. Here are some ideas that could improve the current experience: 1. It would be nice if the mails/notifications included the names of the attackers. 2. it would be nice if there was some form of record (killmail-like) that we can look at to see how many structures we have captured over time. Competitors love their trophies. 3. Some type of timer that starts despawning command nodes if nobody follows through after reinforcing. Maybe the timer pauses or resets once an attacker starts capturing command nodes. 4. Can play around with side-effects of an entosis link. Tether, speed, ship class requirements. 5. When a station enters freeport it could randomly jettison a percentage of the ships inside. Thanks for collecting feedback.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.08.03 01:21:55 - [59] - Quote WhiteCat Lavartega wrote: Or if thats your main you should know that NPC corporations can't capture sov, so your posts here are pointless. Funny enough, CAS* held sov for a few weeks in Fountain. And regardless of the asterisk, opinions of people in NPC corps are totally relevant as the new sov system totally impacts our thoughts on moving into a null alliance or not.
Jaqen Ahai SYNDAX CORPORATION Yulai Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 01:32:22 - [60] - Quote The new system is great. Promote active living and superior tactics not afk ratting and blobbers.

Petre en Thielles Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 192	Posted - 2015.08.03 01:35:56 - [61] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Funny enough, CAS* held sov for a few weeks in Fountain. And regardless of the asterisk, opinions of people in NPC corps are totally relevant as the new sov system totally impacts our thoughts on moving into a null alliance or not. I'm a former CFC member for multiple years. Given after I quit and badmouthed their carebear nature, I ended up on more than a few watchlists, so I hide my identity on threads like this. I wouldn't expect people like him who hide behind the carebear safety of the multi thousand player blue doughnut to understand.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1473	Posted - 2015.08.03 02:22:16 - [62] - Quote Jaqen Ahai wrote: The new system is great. Promote active living and superior tactics not afk ratting and blobbers. This is actually what Aegis Sov encourages. Get a ratio of >100 players per system. Rat and mine the living hell out of it to raise the index. Blob the ** out of anyone who messes with you. That's Aegis Sov. Nothing changes, except that it is all mandatory now. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why** do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Xade Mex Outer Void Applications Blades of Grass 1	Posted - 2015.08.03 02:39:24 - [63] - Quote Has your small alliance been able to capture space for the first time ever? We took sov under Dominion (less than a week before fozziesov) but we were able to keep it (hah even ninjaed one system from .-A-. under dominionsov). in direct fights the bigger force still wins but the def-multipliers give you enough time to call for help We are fighting REQ as local enemy sov-holders and yeah the alliance with a more concentrated sov that gets utilizedis better off. (didnt los a single system yet but they are loosing and regaining systems frequently) Are you playing World of Warships while AFK capping 800 command nodes? No, if we attack nodes we have alts who cap nodes while having our combatmains in the mobile defence fleet and or scouts around. since that alone is pretty engaging and well, since we dont have 200 people at hand we have to do several things at the same time maybe the experience of bigger alliances is different. Has your corporation or alliance's playstyle been radically altered by fozziesov? Since we had left the CFC 3-4 months ago we got from ultra-largescale to smallscale pvp early on pretty much and that experience had payed of for us, mixxed witht he large-fleet experience that still exists and is needed from time to time its a well round up of playstiles and since we are mainly using cruisers like before, ishtars, tengus you remmber? :D but we HAVE to do something for our space which is not that easy all the time because of campers for 4-5 days which might should be easier to defend against, but we adapted to that by now, we had to become carebears and sentences like "im mining i cant come with you on the roam" are a valid reason NOT do do pvp right now, not a reason to kick somebody :D In my conclusion the new system is better than the old. MAYBE still prevent troll-ceptoring and maybe make more like a 12 hour window instead of a 18 for unused systems? or give each non-stratig index a bigger improvement. like 0.6 or 0.8 per level so you ahve a ratting-lvl 5 + strat lvl 5 system with max defense-index because you dont want to mine on a pipe-system (maybe not even rat there :D ) which will be attackt way more often than a non-pipe or put in a "constellation capital" where nodes have a double-chance to spawn if your alliance controlls the majority of the constellation or sth like that. just throwing around ideas. BUT the positiv footnote is in the last 3 weeks i hade 2 incredible AWESOME fights and had more fun that the last year because fleets are smaller and if you do well, your fleet does well. so smallscalle pvp is GREAT and fast-paced pvp is even better like 15 guys sitting around wiht node-capturers all over the constellation. a 12 man fleet comes in and engages them a quick fight 3-5 minutes unfolds one side gets the upperhand bam over. one side goes home and either reforms or stands down. i never had the case that the entosis guys were specifically focused but that might be that case if you go beyond 100 people but the problem is that if you cant kill their primary fleet you have close to no chance to keep them from entosisn without killing the primary fleet first or without having them bound somewhere else but those strategies will evolve over the next 2-3 months i think, maybe do some little tweaks fast but gather more info and more experience is my recomendation
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 282	Posted - 2015.08.03 04:23:51 - [64] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: (The Yrton constellation in Cloud Ring has been interesting to watch, though. Go check out how often Sov has flipped there since, and just prior to, Aegis.) By my count, a sixth alliance has made a claim to a system in the Yrton constellation. SpaceMonkey's Alliance Quantum Collective (Technically, IIRC, SMA gave the systems to these guys just before Aegis Sov hit.) Notoriously Incompetent. V.e.G.A. Mercenary Coalition Boys without pants
Jynx Garza Stringent Method Mordus Angels 2	Posted - 2015.08.03 04:50:17 - [65] - Quote I have played this game off and on for years i recently came back and was getting ready to quit again then this Agis sov came into play and i like it it forces more fights for pvp and my small group can take and hold a sov with out having to have a blob of caps i notice the ones complain the most are the large alliances with systems they are not even occupying as a seasoned player of eve i believe this is one of the best additions to eve the new sov allows smaller alliances to move into null sec capture and hold space and give me more stuff to do Thank you for this awesome addition to game play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
alpha36 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2015.08.03 04:52:31 - [66] - Quote Jynx Garza wrote: I have played this game off and on for years i recently came back and was getting ready to quit again then this Agis sov came into play and i like it it forces more fights for pvp and my small group can take and hold a sov with out having to have a blob of caps i notice the ones complain the most are the large alliances with systems they are not even occupying as a seasoned player of eve i believe this is one of the best additions to eve the new sov allows smaller alliances to move into null sec capture and hold space and give me more stuff to do Thank you for this awesome addition to game play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Haha what. You dont fight you run away and you havent taken any sov and never will. Is this real life? You guys literally just helped the Imperium do a sov transfer by grinding that TNT constellation, how can people be this dumb??
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1475	Posted - 2015.08.03 08:01:05 - [67] - Quote Xade Mex wrote: Positive post about Aegis Sov... Glad to hear that you are enjoying it. I hope to see more posts like this from people who are giving it a try. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Tacom Ogauhiehe We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 08:23:10 - [68] - Quote I like the possibilities of the new system, but I think that it is really boring when there is no fight. I would like to see the entosising speed increasing each cicle. This way, if I am hacking something unopposed, the time to achieve it would be greatly reduced. Also, to avoid having the cluster littered with half contested systems, it would be convenient if a vulnerable system that has not been attacked by the end of the vulnerability window reverts automatically to the defender.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 23	Posted - 2015.08.03 08:45:17 - [69] - Quote New sov is fun. Althoght the larger alliances continues refusing to surrendering sov on unoccupied systems, we continue fighting them massively out numbered. Release the space you dont live in Pure Blind. Dont and suffer the consequences of entosing and coming to protect them. And stop whining for trying to protect space you dont live in. Its your fault! Sov is working as intended.
Jaqen Ahai SYNDAX CORPORATION Yulai Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 09:10:03 - [70] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Jaqen Ahai wrote: The new system is great. Promote active living and superior tactics not afk ratting and blobbers. This is actually what Aegis Sov encourages. Get a ratio of >100 players per system. Rat and mine the living hell out of it to raise the index. Blob the **** out of anyone who messes with you. That's Aegis Sov. Nothing changes, except that it is all mandatory now. Try doing that in all of your systems... If you can you will have no problem, so I will take your comment as an endorsement of the new mechanics. The rest of us can just focus on the space we actually live in.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 23	Posted - 2015.08.03 09:30:10 - [71] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Jaqen Ahai wrote: The new system is great. Promote active living and superior tactics not afk ratting and blobbers. This is actually what Aegis Sov encourages. Get a ratio of >100 players per system. Rat and mine the living hell out of it to raise the index. Blob the **** out of anyone who messes with you. That's Aegis Sov. Nothing changes, except that it is all mandatory now. I say this a is a big distortion of the truth. You dont need that many to rat and mine it and keep the index level. You only need to do this if you want to raise the the index level from very low to very high level by doing 2/3 days of work. Which is what you guys did in Pure Blind in several systems.
Minty Aroma Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 54	Posted - 2015.08.03 09:55:47 - [72] - Quote Icycle wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Jaqen Ahai wrote: The new system is great. Promote active living and superior tactics not afk ratting and blobbers. This is actually what Aegis Sov encourages. Get a ratio of >100 players per system. Rat and mine the living hell out of it to raise the index. Blob the **** out of anyone who messes with you. That's Aegis Sov. Nothing changes, except that it is all mandatory now. I say this a is a big distortion of the truth. You dont need that many to rat and mine it and keep the index level. You only need to do this if you want to raise the the index level from very low to very high level by doing 2/3 days of work. Which is what you guys did in Pure Blind in several systems. Yes you do - Index level decays over time, therefore you need to constantly rat/mine to keep the indexes up. Zerg rating/mining the indexes up is only a short term fix.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 23	Posted - 2015.08.03 10:03:33 - [73] - Quote Minty Aroma wrote: Icycle wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Jaqen Ahai wrote: The new system is great. Promote active living and superior tactics not afk ratting and blobbers. This is actually what Aegis Sov encourages. Get a ratio of >100 players per system. Rat and mine the living hell out of it to raise the index. Blob the **** out of anyone who messes with you. That's Aegis Sov. Nothing changes, except that it is all mandatory now. I say this a is a big distortion of the truth. You dont need that many to rat and mine it and keep the index level. You only need to do this if you want to raise the the index level from very low to very high level by doing 2/3 days of work. Which is what you guys did in Pure Blind in several systems. Yes you do - Index level decays over time, therefore you need to constantly rat/mine to keep the indexes up. Zerg rating/mining the indexes up is only a short term fix. 20 man fleet is more than enough to keep index level up. You dont even need that number. The renters are doing it in N-H32Y, EL8-4Q and JC-YX8 and the most average they have is 5 people per system and the index level is nearly maxed out. So please dont lie. Or are you trying to tell me that CFC dont know how to keep their index level and a section 8 corp does
Nashall Khan Dead's Prostitutes The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 13:39:51 - [74] - Quote I want the command node number decreased and/or want an automatic win on uncontested timers.
Xan Auditore MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 2	Posted - 2015.08.03 13:47:55 - [75] - Quote alpha36 wrote: Jynx Garza wrote: I have played this game off and on for years i recently came back and was getting ready to quit again then this Agis sov came into play and i like it it forces more fights for pvp and my small group can take and hold a sov with out having to have a blob of caps i notice the ones complain the most are the large alliances with systems they are not even occupying as a seasoned player of eve i believe this is one of the best additions to eve the new sov allows smaller alliances to move into null sec capture and hold space and give me more stuff to do Thank you for this awesome addition to game play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Haha what. You dont fight you run away and you havent taken any sov and never will. Is this real life? You guys literally just helped the Imperium do a sov transfer by grinding that TNT constellation, how can people be this dumb?? This article is for player feedback. It's turning into a CFC tear-bath. Why you guys so mad?
Norris Leet Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 14:24:15 - [76] - Quote Exactly what we said would happen happened insert surprised look here You've turned the game into far more tedium than Dominion ever was. 1) Troll ceptors are a thing (despite your promises they wouldn't be) 2) The fact that hundreds of nodes can be spawned is silly (Turns sov events into 2-4 hours per system with 10 systems that's 20-40 hours to deal with) 3) Gameplay has staled - all we see are interceptor gangs. (Thanks CCP - what a great ideas sarcasm) *Fixes* 1) Limit entosis links to cruiser or larger hulls 2) Will be fixed by 1 3) Will be fixed by 1 - Also remove bubble immunity.
Norris Leet Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 14:27:20 - [77] - Quote Xan Auditore wrote: alpha36 wrote: Jynx Garza wrote: I have played this game off and on for years i recently came back and was getting ready to quit again then this Agis sov came into play and i like it it forces more fights for pvp and my small group can take and hold a sov with out having to have a blob of caps i notice the ones complain the most are the large alliances with systems they are not even occupying as a seasoned player of eve i believe this is one of the best additions to eve the new sov allows smaller alliances to move into null sec capture and hold space and give me more stuff to do Thank you for this awesome addition to game play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Haha what. You dont fight you run away and you havent taken any sov and never will. Is this real life? You guys literally just helped the Imperium do a sov transfer by grinding that TNT constellation, how can people be this dumb?? This article is for player feedback. It's turning into a CFC tear-bath. Why you guys so mad? This coming from the alliance that highlights the problems best. We show up in capitals, immediately after we leave you guys bring out 30 interceptors to roam Deklein. All of your Sov capture events so far have been in frigates/interceptors.
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 15	Posted - 2015.08.03 14:31:37 - [78] - Quote Norris Leet wrote: Xan Auditore wrote: alpha36 wrote: Jynx Garza wrote: I have played this game off and on for years i recently came back and was getting ready to quit again then this Agis sov came into play and i like it it forces more fights for pvp and my small group can take and hold a sov with out having to have a blob of caps i notice the ones complain the most are the large alliances with systems they are not even occupying as a seasoned player of eve i believe this is one of the best additions to eve the new sov allows smaller alliances to move into null sec capture and hold space and give me more stuff to do Thank you for this awesome addition to game play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Haha what. You dont fight you run away and you havent taken any sov and never will. Is this real life? You guys literally just helped the Imperium do a sov transfer by grinding that TNT constellation, how can people be this dumb?? This article is for player feedback. It's turning into a CFC tear-bath. Why you guys so mad? This coming from the alliance that highlights the problems best. We show up in capitals, immediately after we leave you guys bring out 30 interceptors to roam Deklein. All of your Sov capture events so far have been in frigates/interceptors. Actually it's been mainly in cormorants with a little Ewar support. Also, bringing 60 Ferox, 80 Harpys, 40 Cerberus and 20+ Capitals to fight a 25 man Corm troll fleet then you wonder why you don't get a fight . . . .
Kibbolski Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 8	Posted - 2015.08.03 14:54:48 - [79] - Quote After not being able to play for a while I finally got to test out fozziesov over the weekend. Two defensive ops in which the only actual action I saw was a sabre pilot messing up his aggression timer on a gate trying to delay our fleet. Other than that it was nothing but interceptors zooming around trying to divert our attention from the strategic objectives. I've been told by other members of the corp that the mechanics are great for forcing fights/responses when you are out roaming hostile space. What I'm taking away from this is that the fozziesov mechanics, in their current iteration, are great if you are not actually interested in holding sov but just want to provoke fights/defensive responses, but if you are interested in actually holding sov it becomes a bit of a chore. Back when this was all first announced I was being cautiously optimistic about these mechanics possibly leading to more skirmishes between fleets in the 50-100 man ranges, which is something I enjoy participating in. But so far it seems it's nothing but entosis ships fit around the purpose of outrunning anyone trying to catch them and cheap throwaway frigates. I like the system at its very core but numbers need tweaking, badly.
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 17	Posted - 2015.08.03 15:42:27 - [80] - Quote Kibbolski wrote: I like the system at its very core but numbers need tweaking, badly. I'd agree there are too many capture nodes - IMO there should be 10 scattered throughout the constellation and a new one only appear when one has been capped. I'd even agree up to a point about 'trollceptors' but the basic theory behind the mechanics is sound IMO. CFC have gone about this the right way, ratting and mining system indexes up to limit the window of opportunity to troll and increasing the time it takes. They also dumped several regions in preparation and make a concerted effort try to stop the initial attacks so the nodes don't spawn.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 27	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:00:36 - [81] - Quote I dont see the problem with what you call a "troll ceptor". I mean you cant fit a Tech II entosis on a ceptor. So this is out of the question. You can however fit a Tech I into a ceptor. But ceptor can only entosis within 25km. So its really easy to deal what you call a "troll ceptor". 1- You can damp them and they will have to start the process again from scratch. Very easy. 2- ECM them and they will have to start the process again from scratch. Very easy. 3- Kill it. Get a fast ship and scram. The end. Easy. 4- You can scram it with an arazu. The end. Easy. 5- Also it cannot warp so all it can do is try and out run you. Get a fast ship and hunt it down. Easy. This does not have to be as hard as quantum mechanics. Dont over think it. Or are you asking for it to be sitting still so that you can always kill it just like you would with a cheap cyno? If so, you are not suppose to be able to kill everything you happen to see. The target is suppose to have a chance of getting out.
alpha36 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:11:54 - [82] - Quote Icycle wrote: I dont see the problem with what you call a "troll ceptor" The problem, the real problem and the biggest problem that anyone has with this new system is that it was supposed to help stagnation in 0.0 and encourage fights. Theres a few fights happening in the east but thats about it. Nobody in a troll ceptor is looking for a fight, they are looking to troll and be annoying, thats fine. Trolling and being annoying is cool ingame but it has no place in a robust, fun and rewarding sovereignty system.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 291	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:30:21 - [83] - Quote alpha36 wrote: Icycle wrote: I dont see the problem with what you call a "troll ceptor" The problem, the real problem and the biggest problem that anyone has with this new system is that it was supposed to help stagnation in 0.0 and encourage fights. Theres a few fights happening in the east but thats about it. Nobody in a troll ceptor is looking for a fight, they are looking to troll and be annoying, thats fine. Trolling and being annoying is cool ingame but it has no place in a robust, fun and rewarding sovereignty system. It's easy for an Entosis-fitted Interceptor to troll and annoy and alliance if that alliance is trying to hold Aegis Sov by using Dominion Sov tactics. It's impossible for an Entosis-fitted Interceptor to troll and annoy an alliance that has made the transition to Aegis Sov tactics.
Karak Bol Low-Sec Survival Ltd. Boys without pants 224	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:42:28 - [84] - Quote Well, we are actually a ~100 guy Ally and yes, we did take sov. Kinda by accident, I just wanted a screenshot. The system is ok, but maybe, just maybe rise the size of ships needed a bit. Like T1 BS and/or T2 Cruiser at least. Make people risk something if they want sov and then lift the "no rep" limitation or something.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 3	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:46:23 - [85] - Quote alpha36 wrote: Icycle wrote: I dont see the problem with what you call a "troll ceptor" The problem, the real problem and the biggest problem that anyone has with this new system is that it was supposed to help stagnation in 0.0 and encourage fights. Theres a few fights happening in the east but thats about it. Nobody in a troll ceptor is looking for a fight, they are looking to troll and be annoying, thats fine. Trolling and being annoying is cool ingame but it has no place in a robust, fun and rewarding sovereignty system. Nothing about ceptor trolling keeps you from getting fights. Rocking back on your heels and whining about how hard it is to not attack your neighbors has no place in a robust, fun, and rewarding sovereignty system either. Post 1% of your coalition on ceptor guard duty and take the rest on a wildfire burn across the map. That content is avalible, but your leadership refuses to take part. They say it is pointless because all that sov can't be taken and controlled. Well yeah, that's the point guys and gals. You've said for years that it's all about the fights and now that it's actually all about the fights, we're back full-circle to the old MolleSov argument that it's about the appropriate and well-to-do players holding the space they so justly deserve. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from holding most, if not all, the space you've got and spending the majority of your time generating content by way of absolutely melting the rest of nullsec. At one point that was the dream. Now it's all patty-cake titans around a stargate whining about how interceptors are boring. The only ones denying you content are in your own coalition. So get back to your Miniluv gank fleets and ishtar farming if that makes you happy, just don't whinge about the fact nothings going on in nullsec but ceptor trolling when the very last thing you do with your time is attack another sov holder in earnest.
alpha36 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:46:45 - [86] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: It's impossible for an Entosis-fitted Interceptor to troll and annoy an alliance that has made the transition to Aegis Sov tactics A lot of dissonance could be eliminated from this thread if we disregard posts from npc corps, people that never had and never will have sov and people that dont want sov. I dont think anyone would argue that The Imperium has adapted to Aegis-sov the best out of all 0.0 groups and their regions are nigh impenetrable thanks to using the system. Even in a max-ADM region theres still a 3 hour window each day where you chase uncatchable intercetors and play whack-a-mole with people that dont wanna fight. I know Mordus Angels has a max dudes CTA to this thread but they would serve themselves a lot better by examining why they are continually frustrated at every angle. They have been beating their heads against a brick wall for years and keep asking: why does it hurt?? Little fellas over in Etherium Reach and Perrigen Falls and Curse and Scalding Pass are all taking their own sov for the first time. Any small groups that really want sov has a real shot at taking it in many places on the map. These 40 guys think they should be able to wrest it from 14,000 players which would never happen even in the worst scenario but the dream is still there. And thats why a genuine discussion about tweaks that could and should be mde to Aegis-sov devolve into trollceptor talk.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6464	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:54:02 - [87] - 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!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 3	Posted - 2015.08.03 16:55:20 - [88] - Quote Sounds like your argument is you're totally unaffected and trollsov. Why are you posting? 40 trolls don't think they're supposed to sweep the region out from under you and they seem to be having a good time doing whatever "boring," thing you think they shouldn't be doing. Maybe it's time you stopped pretending that you care about their enjoyment and go make some content?
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 292	Posted - 2015.08.03 17:16:20 - [89] - Quote Karak Bol wrote: Well, we are actually a ~100 guy Ally and yes, we did take sov. Kinda by accident, I just wanted a screenshot. The system is ok, but maybe, just maybe rise the size of ships needed a bit. Like T1 BS and/or T2 Cruiser at least. Make people risk something if they want sov and then lift the "no rep" limitation or something. Sounds like CAS's experience holding sov in Fountain. I noticed your TCU is now out of reinforcement and at the default 50% defense index - out of curiosity, do you plan on defending it? If not, I don't see the issue with a frigate claiming it. If yes, I again don't see an issue with frigates using Entosis Links since you can do the same and also utilize destroyers and cruisers to chase off and/or kill the frigs. It's not like you'd have to travel far since it's only a single system. (But I assume you don't plan on keeping the system, since a system without an Outpost is a bad starting point. Did you notice that B-DBYQ right next to you doesn't have a TCU and the Outpost is in Freeport status? JF some combat ships in and stage there, and your 100-person alliance [with, I assume, 20 to 40 online at any point in time?] could make a go of holding it against VEGA, MC and the like.)
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 294	Posted - 2015.08.03 17:54:08 - [90] - Quote alpha36 wrote: Eli Stan wrote: It's impossible for an Entosis-fitted Interceptor to troll and annoy an alliance that has made the transition to Aegis Sov tactics A lot of dissonance could be eliminated from this thread if we disregard posts from npc corps, people that never had and never will have sov and people that dont want sov. I dont think anyone would argue that The Imperium has adapted to Aegis-sov the best out of all 0.0 groups and their regions are nigh impenetrable thanks to using the system. Even in a max-ADM region theres still a 3 hour window each day where you chase uncatchable interceptors and play whack-a-mole with people that dont wanna fight. I know Mordus Angels has a max dudes CTA to this thread but they would serve themselves a lot better by examining why they are continually frustrated at every angle. They have been beating their heads against a brick wall for years and keep asking: why does it hurt?? Little fellas over in Etherium Reach and Perrigen Falls and Curse and Scalding Pass are all taking their own sov for the first time. Any small groups that really want sov has a real shot at taking it in many places on the map. These 40 guys think they should be able to wrest it from 14,000 players which would never happen even in the worst scenario but the dream is still there. And thats why a genuine discussion about tweaks that could and should be made to Aegis-sov devolve into trollceptor talk. (Bullet points added to match up with your above paragraphs, assuming I got my formatting right.) - Ad hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your arguments. 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.) -Indeed. I look at Deklein and hardly ever see anything reinforced. Good job! As opposed to, for example, BL, who had a huge amount of their sov structures reinforced in Fountain recently. They're going to be having a bad time come a few hours from now when all the command nodes start spawning. -Do you mean in backwater places like R8S-1K that have had all of 33 jumps in the past hour and a low ADM of 2.4? Yeah, that's more susceptible to trollceptors since you hardly ever have anybody there. But you have an Outpost just a single gate away in FO8M-2 which seems to have a decent amount of traffic - I can understand being annoyed at having to undock, but if sending a single person in cruiser one jump away to deal with a frig is so onerous - a frig that takes 30 minutes to create a reinforcement event (5 minute warpup and 24 minute capture) - then perhaps your leadership should reconsider their commitment to keeping a TCU there. -They're frustrated? I got the impression from the discussions that they're actually snickering a bit about how things are going. -Indeed, that does seem to be the case. Although it'll take more than just three weeks for some of the holders of Dominion Sov to figure out the new system and provide a bit of breathing room to these new little fellas, I think. The big guys are somewhat effectively still kicking out the little fellas at times, but at an unsustainable mental cost, it seems. -Yup, certainly worthy of discussion.

alpha36 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2015.08.03 18:14:48 - [91] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: -They're frustrated? I got the impression from the discussions that they're actually snickering a bit about how things are going. Their entire membership changes every two months, a new group of fresh-faced corps joins and goes: "Wow this is great, grr goons gonna kill me some CFC." Then two months later they leave for an established, stable, sov-holding alliance when they realize living in npc space with the most efficient warmachine in the history of EVE next door is no fun. The leaders of the two biggest corps stay the same and feed the rhetoric to the next crop. People seem to be mistaken about anyone asking/looking for content? I dont want or need anyones content, I did my time and fought in every major war of the last 4 years. I play a bit more casually now and log in a couple hours a day and run some ratting carriers or something. Nobody in established 0.0 wants or needs anyone new to enter the arena. If somebody wants too thats cool. I would probably log in more and play more actively if 0.0 wasnt filled with coward tactics and no-commit fits. Slippy Petes and nullified interceptors zipping around everywhere. All anyone is asking for is risk vs. reward and conflict generation, theres nothing worth fighting for right now in 0.0 and everything worth trolling for. I believe Elise Randolph put it best when he said: When Venal was worth 800b a month people fought tooth and nail for it and them wars were great. Nobody cares about your sov laser on mah ihub. Its just not great gameplay. Knock yourself out though with them links okay?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6465	Posted - 2015.08.03 18:20:39 - [92] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6737	Posted - 2015.08.03 19:07:25 - [93] - 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.) It's ok, even if they've never held sov, don't want it, and are in highsec, we will welcome them. There's still space in our Section 8 rental program. alpha36 wrote: Eli Stan wrote: -They're frustrated? I got the impression from the discussions that they're actually snickering a bit about how things are going. Their entire membership changes every two months, a new group of fresh-faced corps joins and goes: "Wow this is great, grr goons gonna kill me some CFC." Then two months later they leave for an established, stable, sov-holding alliance when they realize living in npc space with the most efficient warmachine in the history of EVE next door is no fun. The leaders of the two biggest corps stay the same and feed the rhetoric to the next crop. People seem to be mistaken about anyone asking/looking for content? It's ok though, that's just the way it should be. It sets the tone for their future which is either not in nullsec, or far away from us in nullsec ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.08.03 19:12:05 - [94] - Quote 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.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1030	Posted - 2015.08.03 19:22:55 - [95] - 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. Chasing interceptors, eh? Tell me, how's that whole "catching instawarping interdiction nullified ships" thing working out for you? Sure, we'll snag one or three ever so often with a lucky smartbomb, but that's about the best you can hope for. To be 100% honest, I'd support the current system, with a single caveat. As soon as something is being entosised, all warp drives, jump drives, and prop mods currently on grid, and those that come on grid during the event are disabled until either the link is down, or the capture is complete, whichever comes first. You want to screw with sov, you should have to come prepared for a fight.
Lim Yoona 19	Posted - 2015.08.03 19:29:29 - [96] - Quote Activating an entosis link should be like lighting a cyno: you cant move, no burning offgrid in your nullified interceptor. If people wanna stick a 40m mod on a 20m ship they should be prepared to lose it when engaging in sovereignty warfare. Or..you know, bring a proper support fleet with you and have a fleet fight like the system is supposed to encourage.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.08.03 19:57:09 - [97] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Sure, we'll snag one or three ever so often with a lucky smartbomb, but that's about the best you can hope for. If he's determined to keep at it, I don't see why you needing to be determined to stop it is a problem. Not being able to easily womp a troll ceptor isn't a problem when he doesn't even need to die in order to prevent his capping. Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You want to screw with sov, you should have to come prepared for a fight. The entire point of the sov update was to allow screwing with sov without coming prepared for a supercap brawl. You seem to be confused. Maybe you should go talk with yourself from a year or so ago when you were behind the idea of localized conflict and occupacy sov.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1030	Posted - 2015.08.03 20:35:31 - [98] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Sure, we'll snag one or three ever so often with a lucky smartbomb, but that's about the best you can hope for. If he's determined to keep at it, I don't see why you needing to be determined to stop it is a problem. Not being able to easily womp a troll ceptor isn't a problem when he doesn't even need to die in order to prevent his capping. Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You want to screw with sov, you should have to come prepared for a fight. The entire point of the sov update was to allow screwing with sov without coming prepared for a supercap brawl. You seem to be confused. Maybe you should go talk with yourself from a year or so ago when you were behind the idea of localized conflict and occupacy sov. I am still behind these things. It is not the sov system I have as much of a problem with, as it is the meta of "ohgodruuuuun". That was a problem before the nano nerfs, it's been a problem since nullified interceptors and the Mordus ships became a thing, and this sov system has just highlighted that problem.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.08.03 20:42:33 - [99] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Billy Bojangle wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Sure, we'll snag one or three ever so often with a lucky smartbomb, but that's about the best you can hope for. If he's determined to keep at it, I don't see why you needing to be determined to stop it is a problem. Not being able to easily womp a troll ceptor isn't a problem when he doesn't even need to die in order to prevent his capping. Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You want to screw with sov, you should have to come prepared for a fight. The entire point of the sov update was to allow screwing with sov without coming prepared for a supercap brawl. You seem to be confused. Maybe you should go talk with yourself from a year or so ago when you were behind the idea of localized conflict and occupacy sov. I am still behind these things. It is not the sov system I have as much of a problem with, as it is the meta of "ohgodruuuuun". That was a problem before the nano nerfs, it's been a problem since nullified interceptors and the Mordus ships became a thing, and this sov system has just highlighted that problem. Well you've definitely got my support if you want to talk about nerfing bubble immunity and the cancer mordu ships, but unfortunately that's not what most of the pentagoon posters here are suggesting.
Rhohan Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.08.03 21:39:38 - [100] - Quote I think this new form of Sov is brilliant. It forces Sov holders to defend their space from even the smallest annoyances. It challenges their tactical organization and strategic commitment in trying to control so much space. Even though the adjustment may be painful for some, its probably the best recent change to the game. I hope the Devs stick to this change and don't cave to those unwilling to change or adapt. I realize some minor adjustments may be needed of course. Good work on "Aegis Sov" CCP!

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6469	Posted - 2015.08.03 21:49:26 - [101] - 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!
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2313	Posted - 2015.08.03 22:59:31 - [102] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. This is essentially true. No one is fighting anybody and the only people who are really playing the new sov game have no interest in actually playing it because they're the ones who keep going on about giving no *** about sov. They fly around generating timers, then the times get defended by those who give a about sov while those who don't give a ** about sov go haha, made you undock!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 8	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:35:34 - [103] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Few people are asking for a rollback, most are just asking for action to be taken to make this system actually work. 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. Lucas Kell wrote: And how is the old system more stale? We used to have fights most of the time. 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. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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? Lucas Kell wrote: If you legitimately think this system is working and you're not just thinking "grr goons" then there's no helping you. "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?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6737	Posted - 2015.08.04 03:57:44 - [104] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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? More blue lists. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6474	Posted - 2015.08.04 06:46:47 - [105] - 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!
Anthar Thebess 1251	Posted - 2015.08.04 08:09:23 - [106] - Quote For me the problem in current sov , is that it works in the base concepts: - vast areas of space hard to defend/ easy to contest by small groups - more time needed to maintain space - people need to live , and operate in space they own to maintain it but thats it. There is one important thing missing : - fights - this sov should encourage fights , and it is not doing this. Currently base content generator are tower fights , or when the constellation you are contesting can be locked down by guarding 1 gate In the space that i live in , no new groups are contesting space, because this regions ( not 1 region, but multiple ones) are so far from nearest lowsec connection that no one new even thinks about doing something there. (create new gate connections ?) Sorry CCP , but if i would like to chase some frigates, and orbit some bacons , while watching TV, i would join FW . I know that PVP content is made by players, we decide if we want to play or not - and this is main problem, new sov don't encourages 2 groups to fight. There is no easy fix to this situation, especially that you can "meta game" new sov so easy. (for example) Enemy brings full fleet to "entosis" the station , oh well we bring 2 people , and put a tower that have 500 ewar frigates - and we brake each cycle making all entosis pilots cry. CCP WE NEED CONTENT GENERATORS. Things that force 2 groups to fight and not evade one each other. I was against moon mining in current form, but boost usage of r16/r32 or maybe even r8. If sov will not generate fights ( and in current form it will not) at least fights over towers will keep people playing this game. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 52	Posted - 2015.08.04 09:33:24 - [107] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: For me the problem in current sov , is that it works in the base concepts: - vast areas of space hard to defend/ easy to contest by small groups - more time needed to maintain space - people need to live , and operate in space they own to maintain it but thats it. There is one important thing missing : - fights - this sov should encourage fights , and it is not doing this. Currently base content generator are tower fights , or when the constellation you are contesting can be locked down by guarding 1 gate In the space that i live in , no new groups are contesting space, because this regions ( not 1 region, but multiple ones) are so far from nearest lowsec connection that no one new even thinks about doing something there. (create new gate connections ?) Sorry CCP , but if i would like to chase some frigates, and orbit some bacons , while watching TV, i would join FW . I know that PVP content is made by players, we decide if we want to play or not - and this is main problem, new sov don't encourages 2 groups to fight. There is no easy fix to this situation, especially that you can "meta game" new sov so easy. (for example) Enemy brings full fleet to "entosis" the station , oh well we bring 2 people , and put a tower that have 500 ewar frigates - and we brake each cycle making all entosis pilots cry. CCP WE NEED CONTENT GENERATORS. Things that force 2 groups to fight and not evade one each other. I was against moon mining in current form, but boost usage of r16/r32 or maybe even r8. If sov will not generate fights ( and in current form it will not) at least fights over towers will keep people playing this game. if you want content its easy. Deploy a pos on enemy system. Attack sov or station on capital region of your enemy. Bubble their stations, hell camp them. It should be more than enough if they want to fight you. If they dont want, then nothing in the world will make them. Its very easy to find content. you just got to look for it and put a bit of effort.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6477	Posted - 2015.08.04 09:42:02 - [108] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6737	Posted - 2015.08.04 09:42:37 - [109] - Quote Timers lead to fights, thus: more timers lead to more fights. As can be seen, fozziesov leads to many timers, this means it should lead to even more fights! Just today I had an amazing fight... against wormholers. ncdot, pl and moa showed up but they ran away in their interdiction nullified (tengus, tengus, interceptors) after seeing our blob. Not sure why though, they could've generated so many timers (and therefore fights) but I think the time was wrong and our structures were all invulnerable to the sovlaser ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Anthar Thebess 1251	Posted - 2015.08.04 10:26:30 - [110] - Quote Icycle wrote: if you want content its easy. Deploy a pos on enemy system. Attack sov or station on capital region of your enemy. Bubble their stations, hell camp them. It should be more than enough if they want to fight you. If they dont want, then nothing in the world will make them. Its very easy to find content. you just got to look for it and put a bit of effort. I don't say you are wrong , or that new sov is totally bad - i only state that it current eve universe it lack good reasons to fight. Maybe we need to wait , and see how new sov map will become . I am sitting on the border , i have enemies in 3 directions ( "old sov groups"). No one cares much about contesting systems , big fights happen only when someone contest some "staging" , then groups are camping entry gates to constellation or a system - and i LOVE IT. But this not happen often, most of the timers and fights we get is when some r64 moon needs to be hit or defended - and this is big fight - so 150 vs 150 , something that i and many players like, something that makes null different from FW. This is good healthy nullsec , 300 man local is not a 1.5k blob from old days. Even 50 vs 50 is nice , and i think that CCP need to focus on creating this kind of engagements , and currently only reason i see for this med scale fights are to happen are tower timers. I hate this idea , if someone have better , then put it to CCP - but by boosting r16/r32 usage we can get this kind of fights. This boost of r16 and r32 don't even need to be transferred to isk income, but to usefulness of the minerals mined in every day player operation. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 52	Posted - 2015.08.04 10:43:23 - [111] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6737	Posted - 2015.08.04 10:52:12 - [112] - Quote Icycle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Go attack renters in the east. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 52	Posted - 2015.08.04 10:57:10 - [113] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Icycle wrote: if you want content its easy. Deploy a pos on enemy system. Attack sov or station on capital region of your enemy. Bubble their stations, hell camp them. It should be more than enough if they want to fight you. If they dont want, then nothing in the world will make them. Its very easy to find content. you just got to look for it and put a bit of effort. I don't say you are wrong , or that new sov is totally bad - i only state that it current eve universe it lack good reasons to fight. Maybe we need to wait , and see how new sov map will become . I am sitting on the border , i have enemies in 3 directions ( "old sov groups"). No one cares much about contesting systems , big fights happen only when someone contest some "staging" , then groups are camping entry gates to constellation or a system - and i LOVE IT. But this not happen often, most of the timers and fights we get is when some r64 moon needs to be hit or defended - and this is big fight - so 150 vs 150 , something that i and many players like, something that makes null different from FW. This is good healthy nullsec , 300 man local is not a 1.5k blob from old days. Even 50 vs 50 is nice , and i think that CCP need to focus on creating this kind of engagements , and currently only reason i see for this med scale fights are to happen are tower timers. I hate this idea , if someone have better , then put it to CCP - but by boosting r16/r32 usage we can get this kind of fights. This boost of r16 and r32 don't even need to be transferred to isk income, but to usefulness of the minerals mined in every day player operation. Every time we entosis something we have probably about 20 people and they come to us with 100+ in less than 40 minutes. And if comes out of reinforcement, they litterally bring everything =), you name it, its there! So to me thats healthy in numbers. r16 and r32 are always an issue. The problem is that the big entities wont let you keep any that are worth. So you got to fight for them. Sorry to be so blunt but .. Thats not a game problem but more of an alliance problem not having secured the resources to wage war. I know its a harsh truth to accept, trust me cos I have been there so many times . You will be outnumbered and with no srp. Althought we have some SRP atm, the reality is that only covers certain circubstances. So the majority comes out of what I make and not SRP.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2315	Posted - 2015.08.04 10:59:50 - [114] - Quote Icycle wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Icycle wrote: if you want content its easy. Deploy a pos on enemy system. Attack sov or station on capital region of your enemy. Bubble their stations, hell camp them. It should be more than enough if they want to fight you. If they dont want, then nothing in the world will make them. Its very easy to find content. you just got to look for it and put a bit of effort. I don't say you are wrong , or that new sov is totally bad - i only state that it current eve universe it lack good reasons to fight. Maybe we need to wait , and see how new sov map will become . I am sitting on the border , i have enemies in 3 directions ( "old sov groups"). No one cares much about contesting systems , big fights happen only when someone contest some "staging" , then groups are camping entry gates to constellation or a system - and i LOVE IT. But this not happen often, most of the timers and fights we get is when some r64 moon needs to be hit or defended - and this is big fight - so 150 vs 150 , something that i and many players like, something that makes null different from FW. This is good healthy nullsec , 300 man local is not a 1.5k blob from old days. Even 50 vs 50 is nice , and i think that CCP need to focus on creating this kind of engagements , and currently only reason i see for this med scale fights are to happen are tower timers. I hate this idea , if someone have better , then put it to CCP - but by boosting r16/r32 usage we can get this kind of fights. This boost of r16 and r32 don't even need to be transferred to isk income, but to usefulness of the minerals mined in every day player operation. Every time we entosis something we have probably about 20 people and they come to us with 100+ in less than 40 minutes. And if comes out of reinforcement, they litterally bring everything =), you name it, its there! So to me thats healthy in numbers. r16 and r32 are always an issue. The problem is that the big entities wont let you keep any that are worth. So you got to fight for them. Sorry to be so blunt but .. Thats not a game problem but more of an alliance problem not having secured the resources to wage war. I know its a harsh truth to accept, trust me cos I have been there so many times . You will be outnumbered and with no srp. Althought we have some SRP atm, the reality is that only covers certain circubstances. So the majority comes out of what I make and not SRP. If sov null people had to pay the majority of it themselves, they wouldn't fly anything. If sov null alliances didn't have SRP, they'd cease to exist =p
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 52	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:04:54 - [115] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Icycle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Go attack renters in the east. But I like to have fun with you, not renters. CFC is my enemy, not a poor renter thats been sucked in to pay you. That does not mean that renters may get a bit of a slap every once in a while thought The truth been said I get joy from fighting out numbered and still making decent kills. If not, we would have joined another blobbing community already.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 52	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:12:59 - [116] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Icycle wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Icycle wrote: if you want content its easy. Deploy a pos on enemy system. Attack sov or station on capital region of your enemy. Bubble their stations, hell camp them. It should be more than enough if they want to fight you. If they dont want, then nothing in the world will make them. Its very easy to find content. you just got to look for it and put a bit of effort. I don't say you are wrong , or that new sov is totally bad - i only state that it current eve universe it lack good reasons to fight. Maybe we need to wait , and see how new sov map will become . I am sitting on the border , i have enemies in 3 directions ( "old sov groups"). No one cares much about contesting systems , big fights happen only when someone contest some "staging" , then groups are camping entry gates to constellation or a system - and i LOVE IT. But this not happen often, most of the timers and fights we get is when some r64 moon needs to be hit or defended - and this is big fight - so 150 vs 150 , something that i and many players like, something that makes null different from FW. This is good healthy nullsec , 300 man local is not a 1.5k blob from old days. Even 50 vs 50 is nice , and i think that CCP need to focus on creating this kind of engagements , and currently only reason i see for this med scale fights are to happen are tower timers. I hate this idea , if someone have better , then put it to CCP - but by boosting r16/r32 usage we can get this kind of fights. This boost of r16 and r32 don't even need to be transferred to isk income, but to usefulness of the minerals mined in every day player operation. Every time we entosis something we have probably about 20 people and they come to us with 100+ in less than 40 minutes. And if comes out of reinforcement, they litterally bring everything =), you name it, its there! So to me thats healthy in numbers. r16 and r32 are always an issue. The problem is that the big entities wont let you keep any that are worth. So you got to fight for them. Sorry to be so blunt but .. Thats not a game problem but more of an alliance problem not having secured the resources to wage war. I know its a harsh truth to accept, trust me cos I have been there so many times . You will be outnumbered and with no srp. Althought we have some SRP atm, the reality is that only covers certain circubstances. So the majority comes out of what I make and not SRP. If sov null people had to pay the majority of it themselves, they wouldn't fly anything. If sov null alliances didn't have SRP, they'd cease to exist =p Sorry thats not true. Eve has long history of people that have began without SRP and made it big. They have made it only their will, hard work, skills and numbers. The trick in this game is to strike this in balance against your enemy. Fail to do so and you wont get any where. Its a harsh truth but eve is cut throat. I can agree r16 "may" need a small buff but thats about it. But the buff is so small that its not a game changer by any means.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6738	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:17:03 - [117] - Quote Icycle wrote: The truth been said I get joy from fighting out numbered and still making decent kills. If not, we would have joined another blobbing community already. Considering what happened the last time your group was in one... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6477	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:30:28 - [118] - 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!
Anthar Thebess 1251	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:33:42 - [119] - Quote SRP, what is that? Not having SRP is one of the fun things, as you have to do some effort. For me entosis should be a cruiser only module. Fitted T1 cruiser cost less than T2 interceptor , it also require less skills - most important part - it is not nullified. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 54	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:42:26 - [120] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Icycle wrote: The truth been said I get joy from fighting out numbered and still making decent kills. If not, we would have joined another blobbing community already. Considering what happened the last time your group was in one... we did it I think was Friday...not sure of the day. You guys came with a scimitar + basi + other ships. It was 80+. You guys warped to us. We engaged and killed two but we could not make anymore damage . We retreated cos it was too many and began to hunt all your struglers. Got and scimi and some others. Then there was a domi fleet with caps which we started to pick off the straglers. Got 2 domies and other ships. Cap jumped out. We continued picking a few smaller ships. Eventually you guys warped to a pos and stayed there.

Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2316	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:44:42 - [121] - Quote Icycle wrote: Kiandoshia wrote: Icycle wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Icycle wrote: if you want content its easy. Deploy a pos on enemy system. Attack sov or station on capital region of your enemy. Bubble their stations, hell camp them. It should be more than enough if they want to fight you. If they dont want, then nothing in the world will make them. Its very easy to find content. you just got to look for it and put a bit of effort. I don't say you are wrong , or that new sov is totally bad - i only state that it current eve universe it lack good reasons to fight. Maybe we need to wait , and see how new sov map will become . I am sitting on the border , i have enemies in 3 directions ( "old sov groups"). No one cares much about contesting systems , big fights happen only when someone contest some "staging" , then groups are camping entry gates to constellation or a system - and i LOVE IT. But this not happen often, most of the timers and fights we get is when some r64 moon needs to be hit or defended - and this is big fight - so 150 vs 150 , something that i and many players like, something that makes null different from FW. This is good healthy nullsec , 300 man local is not a 1.5k blob from old days. Even 50 vs 50 is nice , and i think that CCP need to focus on creating this kind of engagements , and currently only reason i see for this med scale fights are to happen are tower timers. I hate this idea , if someone have better , then put it to CCP - but by boosting r16/r32 usage we can get this kind of fights. This boost of r16 and r32 don't even need to be transferred to isk income, but to usefulness of the minerals mined in every day player operation. Every time we entosis something we have probably about 20 people and they come to us with 100+ in less than 40 minutes. And if comes out of reinforcement, they litterally bring everything =), you name it, its there! So to me thats healthy in numbers. r16 and r32 are always an issue. The problem is that the big entities wont let you keep any that are worth. So you got to fight for them. Sorry to be so blunt but .. Thats not a game problem but more of an alliance problem not having secured the resources to wage war. I know its a harsh truth to accept, trust me cos I have been there so many times . You will be outnumbered and with no srp. Althought we have some SRP atm, the reality is that only covers certain circubstances. So the majority comes out of what I make and not SRP. If sov null people had to pay the majority of it themselves, they wouldn't fly anything. If sov null alliances didn't have SRP, they'd cease to exist =p Sorry thats not true. Eve has long history of people that have began without SRP and made it big. They have made it only their will, hard work, skills and numbers. The trick in this game is to strike this in balance against your enemy. Fail to do so and you wont get any where. Its a harsh truth but eve is cut throat. I can agree r16 "may" need a small buff but thats about it. But the buff is so small that its not a game changer by any means. Began, yes. :D
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 55	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:50:25 - [122] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: SRP, what is that? Not having SRP is one of the fun things, as you have to do some effort. For me entosis should be a cruiser only module. Fitted T1 cruiser cost less than T2 interceptor , it also require less skills - most important part - it is not nullified. I dont see whats wrong with it. I use both the cruiser and the interceptor. T1 or T2 cruiser is a choice. I prefer a T2 cos of of the resistances, range and speed. Others may think otherwise.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 55	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:52:11 - [123] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Began, yes. :D now you just trolling =)
Anthar Thebess 1251	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:52:27 - [124] - Quote One of the things i like in the new sov is ability to keep enemy at gate - nullified interceptors negate this. So this is the only reason. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Basil Vulpine Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 61	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:55:01 - [125] - Quote Broadly speaking so far I'd say it's been positive but there is definitely room for improvement. Background: We are currently on the borders of a coalition so we have blues we can call on at need and reds next door. Our adjacent reds are about our size and an adjacent TZ, they themselves have larger allies they can call on. This means we are getting a lot of solo / small skirmish action which is pretty much what we want day to day. There are larger fleet fights as part of our coalition but significant TiDi is still pretty rare. We've seen probably the whole range of possible options here - trollceptors, soloists picking away at timer nodes, small fleets covering ships busy toasting a node, large fleets camping in stations/choke points while nodes are cleared. RF attempts and timers that are just us vs reds, some which are us and blues vs reds. What we haven't seen much of yet is contested defense where there is a high ADM present. I think Aegis Sov is at its best when you manage to face off roughly equal potential entities, this is something that needs encouragement though this is probably very complex to do decently to avoid easy gaming. Allies in easy reach are almost as big as those present. My main surprises so far are the value of the shorter cycle time on the T2 link and the lack of sov that remains burnt out. People seem pretty fast to slap a new TCU down. I know you've asked for anecdotes and stories, these take a huge amount of time to write up and there's always the nagging feeling that you are forgetting something or not giving due credit. I'm therefore going to be bad and put in a wishlist of changes with some reasons why. Initial RF needs a degree more commitment. Something unused should still burn pretty fast, something heavily used should require commitment to put at risk. Possible options that spring to mind - Higher ADM requires net more attacking entosis links. The easy option would be to make it equal to ADM. Net 1 defender still works as before. - The ever popular "Needs a bigger ship" option. I feel this should depend on the ADM of the target rather than being a blanket change. I'm not in favour of making these too large, WH residents should be able to appear at timers and act more or less as random marauders. Maybe make hull size count as a number of points? Frig = 1, destroyer = 2 etc., a single BS (or 5 frigs) would let you threaten a structure in an ADM 5 system. An actual take-over attempt should be much as it currently is. Setting fires in the hopes that something burns down because somebody else would follow up needs reducing. Maybe when you a new node spawn over x limit (x is lower at higher ADM), despawn the oldest untouched one and count that as a defender victory. Or maybe give characters an "Entosis Focus" that goes up when you hit timer nodes, goes down when you attempt to initiate timers. Low focus takes longer to initiate timers or can't influence high ADM. RF timers / value need some rebalancing. TCUs are by far the least valuable target. Stations are only a useful target if there's a steady population in them. Using Jita values: - A TCU costs 85mil and is 5k m3 to move. Benefits are marginal. - An empty IHub is 400m and is 60k m3 to move. - An IHub that supports an ADM 5 system needs at least PDA3 and OPA3. That's over 1.1bil ISK and 130k m3 moved (total). - That IHub should really have PDA5 and OPA3. That's over 1.7b and 230k moved (total). - An outpost is 25b, many freighters but doesn't go pop. Unless you are moving in it'll be recaptured easily enough. Active modules in an IHub should somehow increase its survival. For PDA and OPA it's not as if their value is a secret, just count the number of anoms spawned! Given the cost of the upgrade BPO sets I don't think a small alliance can be expected to have them but the IHub is the key to keeping a system. Even the smallest alliance that owns sov can't afford to slack on having these upgrades. Maybe if 6 or more active upgrades are in an IHub give it a 2nd RF timer? If 25 or more are active give it a 3rd one? That last threshold can only be achieved in a Mil 5 / Industry 5 system with at least 1 QFG installed. Or create a new strategic upgrade that gives an extra RF cycle, is consumed when the IHub is first RF'd and multiplies the maintenance bill by 2. Entosis link long range and short cycle time needs to be split. The T2 link is a LOT more survivable than the T1. Sure it's more expensive too but the balance is off. Maybe 2 different T2 versions, one focussing on range the other on cycle time? Mostly trolling isn't too much of a problem if you can respond with jammers and damps, home ground advantage and some tactical bookmarks. To add to the possible options for fixing trolling ships: - Activating an entosis link for the warm up cycle causes a message in local. - A fitted entosis link prevents use of nanite paste, an active entosis link increases heat generation. - Cut the long range, no lower than 200km though. At 250km if you warp a sniper in it is still pretty easy to burn out of range. - Fit an entosis link and a non-cov-ops cloak, get slower adjustments. Re-assess inputs to Mil and Industry index so that they are reasonably equivalent in terms of "hours in space". - Mil index is probably being raised by decent combat ships, an AFK Ishtar is probably a good average. - Industry index is probably being raised by relatively decent tank mining ships. Skiff with Rorq boosts (core inactive) is probably a good average. - Possibly weigh ice mining higher per m3 since it inherently takes longer to mine ice by volume than ore. Ideally kill current index calcs and count time spent in space with active targeted high slots. Aggression timer = military, no aggression = industry. I'd also still like to see some advantages to doing ratting/mining etc. in your own space vs others so that there is more incentive to own sov instead of use it
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 55	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:58:54 - [126] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: One of the things i like in the new sov is ability to keep enemy at gate - nullified interceptors negate this. So this is the only reason. Nullified ceptor easy. Steps 1 - Get arazu, fit it with sebos across the mids and one point. 2 - Warp to gate with gang. 3 - Point ceptor. The gang kills it. You can also bring a booster if you want but its not reqired but makes it even easier.
Anthar Thebess 1251	Posted - 2015.08.04 12:03:45 - [127] - Quote Icycle wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: One of the things i like in the new sov is ability to keep enemy at gate - nullified interceptors negate this. So this is the only reason. Nullified ceptor easy. Steps 1 - Get arazu, fit it with sebos across the mids and one point. 2 - Warp to gate with gang. 3 - Point ceptor. The gang kills it. You can also bring a booster if you want but its not reqired but makes it even easier. Capital swarm easy , just drop 700 arty maelstorms to alpha each one of them per cycle. But i think this is not the point Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 55	Posted - 2015.08.04 12:07:36 - [128] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Icycle wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: One of the things i like in the new sov is ability to keep enemy at gate - nullified interceptors negate this. So this is the only reason. Nullified ceptor easy. Steps 1 - Get arazu, fit it with sebos across the mids and one point. 2 - Warp to gate with gang. 3 - Point ceptor. The gang kills it. You can also bring a booster if you want but its not reqired but makes it even easier. Capital swarm easy , just drop 700 arty maelstorms to alpha each one of them per cycle. But i think this is not the point ok thats good. you use your 700 arty maeltroms and alpha his maelstroms while he is busy killing inties or arazu. Hell you can even use something smaller and faster than an arazu. I wont tell you what it is but since you got a brain, i expect you to figger it out ;)
Anthar Thebess 1251	Posted - 2015.08.04 12:12:16 - [129] - Quote Icycle wrote: ok thats good. you use your 700 arty maeltroms and alpha his maelstroms while he is busy killing inties or arazu. Hell you can even use something smaller and faster than an arazu. I wont tell you what it is but since you got a brain, i expect you to figger it out ;) My point is much simpler , when we want to resolve blob issue , don't tell others that brining more solve the issue. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 57	Posted - 2015.08.04 12:34:45 - [130] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Icycle wrote: ok thats good. you use your 700 arty maeltroms and alpha his maelstroms while he is busy killing inties or arazu. Hell you can even use something smaller and faster than an arazu. I wont tell you what it is but since you got a brain, i expect you to figger it out ;) My point is much simpler , when we want to resolve blob issue , don't tell others that brining more solve the issue. We are outnumbered all the time so I dont know what you are talking about. I dont know why you had to bring the maeltrom fleet you are talking about? You are the one that was talking about 700 maeltroms not me. The realisty is whats an ceptro is goign to do vs 700 mealtroms? Nothing is the answer, besides a cyno. But then again you could cyno before with a cheap nulli tengu and with a ceptor too. I dont know why you are talking about large fleets in here. A captor cant do much vs a big fleet.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2076	Posted - 2015.08.04 14:54:18 - [131] - Quote Icycle wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: One of the things i like in the new sov is ability to keep enemy at gate - nullified interceptors negate this. So this is the only reason. Nullified ceptor easy. Steps 1 - Get arazu, fit it with sebos across the mids and one point. 2 - Warp to gate with gang. 3 - Point ceptor. The gang kills it. You can also bring a booster if you want but its not reqired but makes it even easier. And if you send 2 troll ceptor, I need 2 arazu + a gang to kill them? You can also reduce the window between the lock and point application available to nearly nothing thus requiring a computer sitting damn near the server to catch them so bring 4 arazu instead just to be sure. This is getting stupid real fast don't you think?
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 57	Posted - 2015.08.04 15:06:11 - [132] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Icycle wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: One of the things i like in the new sov is ability to keep enemy at gate - nullified interceptors negate this. So this is the only reason. Nullified ceptor easy. Steps 1 - Get arazu, fit it with sebos across the mids and one point. 2 - Warp to gate with gang. 3 - Point ceptor. The gang kills it. You can also bring a booster if you want but its not reqired but makes it even easier. And if you send 2 troll ceptor, I need 2 arazu + a gang to kill them? You can also reduce the window between the lock and point application available to nearly nothing thus requiring a computer sitting damn near the server to catch them so bring 4 arazu instead just to be sure. This is getting stupid real fast don't you think? no, you kill one and then you kill the other. It easy. Well you are not suppose to be able to catch every ship you see =). Thats the design of everything in eve. There will always be one that got away ;) What a troll ceptor going to do if it cant entosis? Besides you just warp cloak to the ihub or tcu. =). If it attempts anything, its dead.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6739	Posted - 2015.08.04 17:09:10 - [133] - Quote trollceptor, the ak47 of random spaceguerrillafighters never let go of it ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 57	Posted - 2015.08.04 17:36:00 - [134] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: trollceptor, the ak47 of random spaceguerrillafighters never let go of it a ceptor is easy to catch all you need is isk to buy a ship the ship properly and maybe one or two guys to kill it. Its really easy compared to one of those guys with a booster alt that kills everything in their path and in order to be killed needs to be jumped by many.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 314	Posted - 2015.08.04 18:00:42 - [135] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Eli Stan wrote: (The Yrton constellation in Cloud Ring has been interesting to watch, though. Go check out how often Sov has flipped there since, and just prior to, Aegis.) By my count, a sixth alliance has made a claim to a system in the Yrton constellation. SpaceMonkey's Alliance Quantum Collective (Technically, IIRC, SMA gave the systems to these guys just before Aegis Sov hit.) Notoriously Incompetent. V.e.G.A. Mercenary Coalition Boys without pants Now up to TCUs from seven different alliances since Aegis implementation. OSS, the alliance of Black Omega Security, has put down a TCU. Small alliance Boys without pants (SLIP) had a run-in with BL, I see, and lost a few Mallers and Augorors.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 60	Posted - 2015.08.04 18:11:08 - [136] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Eli Stan wrote: (The Yrton constellation in Cloud Ring has been interesting to watch, though. Go check out how often Sov has flipped there since, and just prior to, Aegis.) By my count, a sixth alliance has made a claim to a system in the Yrton constellation. SpaceMonkey's Alliance Quantum Collective (Technically, IIRC, SMA gave the systems to these guys just before Aegis Sov hit.) Notoriously Incompetent. V.e.G.A. Mercenary Coalition Boys without pants Now up to TCUs from seven different alliances since Aegis implementation. OSS, the alliance of Black Omega Security, has put down a TCU. Small alliance Boys without pants (SLIP) had a run-in with BL, I see, and lost a few Mallers and Augorors. yep, some nice content there. I think no one is really interested in it but having fun
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2078	Posted - 2015.08.04 18:35:01 - [137] - Quote Icycle wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: trollceptor, the ak47 of random spaceguerrillafighters never let go of it a ceptor is easy to catch all you need is isk to buy a ship the ship properly and maybe one or two guys to kill it. Its really easy compared to one of those guys with a booster alt that kills everything in their path and in order to be killed needs to be jumped by many. With links, you can make a ceptor uncatchable (under 2 sec warp) even with a fitted entosis module fitted and online. The fun part is you can also have your links uncloaked just when you need an fast warp and the cloak it so it can't be probed. Pretty sure it work even with ghetto level (T1 CBC + T1 link) of links.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 9	Posted - 2015.08.04 18:39:37 - [138] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Icycle wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: trollceptor, the ak47 of random spaceguerrillafighters never let go of it a ceptor is easy to catch all you need is isk to buy a ship the ship properly and maybe one or two guys to kill it. Its really easy compared to one of those guys with a booster alt that kills everything in their path and in order to be killed needs to be jumped by many. With links, you can make a ceptor uncatchable (under 2 sec warp) even with a fitted entosis module fitted and online. The fun part is you can also have your links uncloaked just when you need an fast warp and the cloak it so it can't be probed. Pretty sure it work even with ghetto level (T1 CBC + T1 link) of links. First post in a newly minted OGB thread.
Lim Yoona 20	Posted - 2015.08.04 18:51:56 - [139] - Quote Icycle wrote: a ceptor is easy to catch Yeah ok. I'd like to see you catch this guy https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/387379738/ We will call this exhibit A. folks. Here we see the uncatchable interceptor in its natural habitat. It warps in less than 2 seconds, you cant catch it on a gate, its nullified and even if you point it, it burns out of range and warps away. Enough dps to kill from battleship on down, tech 3's included. Thanks Fozzie.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 65	Posted - 2015.08.04 19:15:49 - [140] - Quote Lim Yoona wrote: Icycle wrote: a ceptor is easy to catch Yeah ok. I'd like to see you catch this guy https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/387379738/ We will call this exhibit A. folks. Here we see the uncatchable interceptor in its natural habitat. It warps in less than 2 seconds, you cant catch it on a gate, its nullified and even if you point it, it burns out of range and warps away. Enough dps to kill from battleship on down, tech 3's included. Thanks Fozzie. He obviously is doing this with implants, possibly faction fits and possibly a booster. So its safe to say he put a lot of bling to it. So get a ship with a fast look, get faction sebos, get expensive implants, get booster. Voila. You got to go to extreme with extreme setups. He is not good just cos he is in an interceptor. He is good cus he went to extremes to get like that. So you got to go extremes to catch him. You have to counter extreme with extreme unless he makes a mistake some where Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47714318/ But wait I got more... https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47499813/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47498803/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47273370/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47260555/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47060536/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47028225/ Do you want even more?

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2078	Posted - 2015.08.04 19:23:11 - [141] - Quote Icycle wrote: Lim Yoona wrote: Icycle wrote: a ceptor is easy to catch Yeah ok. I'd like to see you catch this guy https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/387379738/ We will call this exhibit A. folks. Here we see the uncatchable interceptor in its natural habitat. It warps in less than 2 seconds, you cant catch it on a gate, its nullified and even if you point it, it burns out of range and warps away. Enough dps to kill from battleship on down, tech 3's included. Thanks Fozzie. He obviously is doing this with implants, possibly faction fits and possibly a booster. So its safe to say he put a lot of bling to it. So get a ship with a fast look, get faction sebos, get expensive implants, get booster. Voila. You got to go to extreme with extreme setups. He is not good just cos he is in an interceptor. He is good cus he went to extremes to get like that. So you got to go extremes to catch him. You have to counter extreme with extreme unless he makes a mistake some where Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? You do realise nothing in the game can catch a <2 second warp inty unless an error was made or you smartbomb a random gate right?
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.08.04 19:27:05 - [142] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Icycle wrote: Lim Yoona wrote: Icycle wrote: a ceptor is easy to catch Yeah ok. I'd like to see you catch this guy https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/387379738/ We will call this exhibit A. folks. Here we see the uncatchable interceptor in its natural habitat. It warps in less than 2 seconds, you cant catch it on a gate, its nullified and even if you point it, it burns out of range and warps away. Enough dps to kill from battleship on down, tech 3's included. Thanks Fozzie. He obviously is doing this with implants, possibly faction fits and possibly a booster. So its safe to say he put a lot of bling to it. So get a ship with a fast look, get faction sebos, get expensive implants, get booster. Voila. You got to go to extreme with extreme setups. He is not good just cos he is in an interceptor. He is good cus he went to extremes to get like that. So you got to go extremes to catch him. You have to counter extreme with extreme unless he makes a mistake some where Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? You do realise nothing in the game can catch a <2 second warp inty unless an error was made or you smartbomb a random gate right? ROFL. Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? Blink https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47714318/ But wait I got more... https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47499813/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47498803/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47273370/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47260555/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47060536/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47028225/ Do you want even more?
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2078	Posted - 2015.08.04 20:25:28 - [143] - Quote Icycle wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Icycle wrote: Lim Yoona wrote: Icycle wrote: a ceptor is easy to catch Yeah ok. I'd like to see you catch this guy https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/387379738/ We will call this exhibit A. folks. Here we see the uncatchable interceptor in its natural habitat. It warps in less than 2 seconds, you cant catch it on a gate, its nullified and even if you point it, it burns out of range and warps away. Enough dps to kill from battleship on down, tech 3's included. Thanks Fozzie. He obviously is doing this with implants, possibly faction fits and possibly a booster. So its safe to say he put a lot of bling to it. So get a ship with a fast look, get faction sebos, get expensive implants, get booster. Voila. You got to go to extreme with extreme setups. He is not good just cos he is in an interceptor. He is good cus he went to extremes to get like that. So you got to go extremes to catch him. You have to counter extreme with extreme unless he makes a mistake some where Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? You do realise nothing in the game can catch a <2 second warp inty unless an error was made or you smartbomb a random gate right? ROFL. Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? Blink https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47714318/ But wait I got more... https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47499813/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47498803/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47273370/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47260555/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47060536/ https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/47028225/ Do you want even more? 1- Probably died in a site and not on a gate as per the guristas cruise missile damage. 2 and 3 - Not insta warp fit so does not counter my quoted argument. 4- In a site after getting his kill His target ended the fight in a pod 5- Smartbomb 6- Dire Pithi = in a site so not on a gate 7- Drone auto-aggro? Seriously, a BS can't lock fast enough and you know it. So basically, NONE of the presented kill feature a troll ceptor designed to get inside a system without being catched since NONE of them has an entosis link. Is this thread about SOV experience or about random ratter hunting? I though it was about the player experience in the new SOV system but I might be wrong...
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6739	Posted - 2015.08.04 20:42:50 - [144] - Quote hunting ratters is sov nowadays ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5190	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:00:09 - [145] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Icycle wrote: Lim Yoona wrote: Icycle wrote: a ceptor is easy to catch Yeah ok. I'd like to see you catch this guy https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/387379738/ We will call this exhibit A. folks. Here we see the uncatchable interceptor in its natural habitat. It warps in less than 2 seconds, you cant catch it on a gate, its nullified and even if you point it, it burns out of range and warps away. Enough dps to kill from battleship on down, tech 3's included. Thanks Fozzie. He obviously is doing this with implants, possibly faction fits and possibly a booster. So its safe to say he put a lot of bling to it. So get a ship with a fast look, get faction sebos, get expensive implants, get booster. Voila. You got to go to extreme with extreme setups. He is not good just cos he is in an interceptor. He is good cus he went to extremes to get like that. So you got to go extremes to catch him. You have to counter extreme with extreme unless he makes a mistake some where Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? You do realise nothing in the game can catch a <2 second warp inty unless an error was made or you smartbomb a random gate right? You do realize that you don't have to catch anything to defend? Just checking.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6739	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:04:15 - [146] - Quote Goalpost shifter. Yakkitysaxsov is the best, no doubt about it. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2079	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:14:59 - [147] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Icycle wrote: Lim Yoona wrote: Icycle wrote: a ceptor is easy to catch Yeah ok. I'd like to see you catch this guy https://beta.eve-kill.net/character/387379738/ We will call this exhibit A. folks. Here we see the uncatchable interceptor in its natural habitat. It warps in less than 2 seconds, you cant catch it on a gate, its nullified and even if you point it, it burns out of range and warps away. Enough dps to kill from battleship on down, tech 3's included. Thanks Fozzie. He obviously is doing this with implants, possibly faction fits and possibly a booster. So its safe to say he put a lot of bling to it. So get a ship with a fast look, get faction sebos, get expensive implants, get booster. Voila. You got to go to extreme with extreme setups. He is not good just cos he is in an interceptor. He is good cus he went to extremes to get like that. So you got to go extremes to catch him. You have to counter extreme with extreme unless he makes a mistake some where Oh look, he has been caught before....hmm i wonder how its ever be possible??? You do realise nothing in the game can catch a <2 second warp inty unless an error was made or you smartbomb a random gate right? You do realize that you don't have to catch anything to defend? Just checking. You kinda do if you want to prevent trolling. Your sov will not be in real danger but you will always get notification about structure X in system Y being attacked. If you could catch the damn thing and kill it, you might get some relief on that. In the current implementation, you can defend against troll but trolling is just plain wrong in the first place imo. I realize it's a sandbox and people will play the way they want so I'm really not sure how you could prevent senseless trolling without breaking something else more. I'm really not sure what the devs intended for that TBH. Is it really designed to be something you can do just because? Is the system designed so your age old enemy can just play "generate the notification" 'till the cows come home? I am positive that system being used won't be hard to defend against troll but are troll even supposed to be a thing in the first place? His something wrong in the implementation on this side of the coin or is it really working as intended. That's what I would really like to know.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5190	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:46:03 - [148] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Tau Cabalander wrote: You do realize that you don't have to catch anything to defend? Just checking. You kinda do if you want to prevent trolling. Your sov will not be in real danger but you will always get notification about structure X in system Y being attacked. If you could catch the damn thing and kill it, you might get some relief on that. In the current implementation, you can defend against troll but trolling is just plain wrong in the first place imo. I realize it's a sandbox and people will play the way they want so I'm really not sure how you could prevent senseless trolling without breaking something else more. I'm really not sure what the devs intended for that TBH. Is it really designed to be something you can do just because? Is the system designed so your age old enemy can just play "generate the notification" 'till the cows come home? I am positive that system being used won't be hard to defend against troll but are troll even supposed to be a thing in the first place? His something wrong in the implementation on this side of the coin or is it really working as intended. That's what I would really like to know. Chase them, or try to engage them, and they've won. I used to do trolling like that in the playground as a child [got suspended for it too]. Deny them fun. Every single time they try. I'd recommend just ECM jam them, so they can't do anything. Most people hate ECM for that reason. The Scorpion is probably ideal for this (can perma-jam anything fast enough to be a problem); toss in an ECM burst for added salt, and a smartbomb(s) for anti-drones, warp disruption and attacking them is optional as you just want to drive them off (and they are "un-catchable" anyways).
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:50:46 - [149] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: lol https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/46741313/ Ok? besides whats so hard about bombing as well? unless you dont know how its done....
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2080	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:57:03 - [150] - Quote Icycle wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: lol https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/46741313/ Ok? besides whats so hard about bombing as well? unless you dont know how its done.... Pretty sure all the "pith xxx" rats like the one on that kill only sapwn inside of anoms/sites while the ones on the gates are "Guristas xxx". It also does not have an entosis link so it's not a troll ceptor. Are you discussing experience with the new SOV system or ratter hunting again?

Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3563	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:58:35 - [151] - Quote The purpose of the e-link is to show that you have control of the grid. You don't have that control if you have to be on a hair trigger to warp or burn away at any moment. Thus, I propose that the e-link should prevent the use of both the warp drive and a microwarp drive, when active. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.08.04 22:09:17 - [152] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Icycle wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: lol https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/46741313/ Ok? besides whats so hard about bombing as well? unless you dont know how its done.... Pretty sure all the "pith xxx" rats like the one on that kill only sapwn inside of anoms/sites while the ones on the gates are "Guristas xxx". It also does not have an entosis link so it's not a troll ceptor. Are you discussing experience with the new SOV system or ratter hunting again? No thats nothing to do with a pith x. This is one of the secrets to fast lock. Look at the related kill and you will see that this guy killed the ship that actually did the fast look. I know cos I do use this from time to time myself. Since I got to spoon feed you, this is the related kill. https://beta.eve-kill.net/related/30002911/201505200300/ Under that look at the kill. This is the fast locker ship. Now you can get even better if you put implants but the majority of the cases you dont need to ok? https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/46741312/ Is that sufficient or are you going to come up with some other lame excuse
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 317	Posted - 2015.08.04 22:10:17 - [153] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: The purpose of the e-link is to show that you have control of the grid. You don't have that control if you have to be on a hair trigger to warp or burn away at any moment. Thus, I propose that the e-link should prevent the use of both the warp drive and a microwarp drive, when active. Afterburner too, I assume? I've had yet another, different idea - prevent Entosis fitted ships from getting further way from a contested node than the range of their Entosis link, kinda like a reverse POS shield. That way the ships are able to use their prop mods appropriately for combat, but they cannot burn off in a straight line. So an interceptor with a T1 could not get more than 25 km away.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3564	Posted - 2015.08.04 22:14:10 - [154] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: The purpose of the e-link is to show that you have control of the grid. You don't have that control if you have to be on a hair trigger to warp or burn away at any moment. Thus, I propose that the e-link should prevent the use of both the warp drive and a microwarp drive, when active. Afterburner too, I assume? I've had yet another, different idea - prevent Entosis fitted ships from getting further way from a contested node than the range of their Entosis link, kinda like a reverse POS shield. That way the ships are able to use their prop mods appropriately for combat, but they cannot burn off in a straight line. So an interceptor with a T1 could not get more than 25 km away. That could work too, but might be harder to code. For mine, Id leave ABs working. It should be sufficient. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 506	Posted - 2015.08.05 01:48:40 - [155] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: The purpose of the e-link is to show that you have control of the grid. You don't have that control if you have to be on a hair trigger to warp or burn away at any moment. Thus, I propose that the e-link should prevent the use of both the warp drive and a microwarp drive, when active. Or they could have just made it a deployable and avoided all of these problems.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 823	Posted - 2015.08.05 03:10:55 - [156] - Quote You know that a system is bad when mining is more rewarding game play than chasing away sov trolls. At least you get something with mining. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1031	Posted - 2015.08.05 03:18:14 - [157] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: You know that a system is bad when mining is more rewarding game play than chasing away sov trolls. At least you get something with mining. But for the guy running the link, it's kind of like ice mining in reverse. You're putting the stront back.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 824	Posted - 2015.08.05 03:43:22 - [158] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: But for the guy running the link, it's kind of like ice mining in reverse. You're putting the stront back. Yea, undoing what the turd-burglar in the trollcepter did is even worse than chasing them off, because you have to sit on your ass for 10 - 15 minutes, un entosising things. I'm going to predict a great exodus from null, because a lot of people are finding that despite all the advantages to owning null sovereignty, they aren't outweighing the total shitshow that is defending it. What will the sov trolls do when they only have themselves to troll? "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
ISD Buldath ISD STAR 52	Posted - 2015.08.05 03:55:30 - [159] - Quote Let's not Post Any more kill mails On general Discussion, Thanks. That is for Crime and punishment.
Raz Xym Speaker for the Dead Get Off My Lawn 0	Posted - 2015.08.05 05:07:35 - [160] - Quote My experience for far has only been with cleaning up unanswered trolling events. And cleaning up after these is a bother. But perhaps they need to be bothersome, to encourage people to react to the initial flip. So far, in my opinion, the general consensus in most fleets seems to be.... this sucks. I tend to agree the amount of organization/work just to perform the save is larger than the initial trolling action. Now I can come up with reasons why this is good and bad. But, for me, it is hard to really comment on this new system until there is an actual real invasion attempt. Overall I think the system has merits. The initial flip might be a little to open to trolls. But as I suggested, this can be good and bad. Having been one of the people involved with cleaning up after a troll event, I can definitely.... yawn. But hey... these events would not have happened, most likely could not have happened under the old mechanism. And as people realize how bothersome the cleanup is, the less chance they will occur unanswered. Unless of course, they should not own the space in question. Now... we just need to see it action. Enough of these trolling events. I want to see a full blown old fashioned organized invasion with defenders who can defend themselves. I know, wishful thinking. Note: These are my opinions and my opinions alone. They in no way reflect the thoughts of anyone else.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.08.05 09:43:39 - [161] - Quote ISD Buldath wrote: Let's not Post Any more kill mails On general Discussion, Thanks. That is for Crime and punishment. Was not aware of it . Now I know. thx
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.08.05 09:45:11 - [162] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: You know that a system is bad when mining is more rewarding game play than chasing away sov trolls. At least you get something with mining. You guys are obsessed with the word "trolling" What you regard as "trolling" to me is a genuine attack/herass to an IHUB, TCU or a Station. If you dont want to protect it around the clock in space that you dont live well thats your issue but if you do want to protect it then you cant blame it on CCP or call it trolling just cos you decide to defend a system that is really far away from your home systems and that you dont actually bother living in it. To me its all your fault. If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.08.05 09:53:08 - [163] - Quote Raz Xym wrote: My experience for far has only been with cleaning up unanswered trolling events. And cleaning up after these is a bother. But perhaps they need to be bothersome, to encourage people to react to the initial flip. So far, in my opinion, the general consensus in most fleets seems to be.... this sucks. I tend to agree the amount of organization/work just to perform the save is larger than the initial trolling action. Now I can come up with reasons why this is good and bad. But, for me, it is hard to really comment on this new system until there is an actual real invasion attempt. Overall I think the system has merits. The initial flip might be a little to open to trolls. But as I suggested, this can be good and bad. Having been one of the people involved with cleaning up after a troll event, I can definitely.... yawn. But hey... these events would not have happened, most likely could not have happened under the old mechanism. And as people realize how bothersome the cleanup is, the less chance they will occur unanswered. Unless of course, they should not own the space in question. Now... we just need to see it action. Enough of these trolling events. I want to see a full blown old fashioned organized invasion with defenders who can defend themselves. I know, wishful thinking. Note: These are my opinions and my opinions alone. They in no way reflect the thoughts of anyone else. But how are you going to see full action deployment invasion when you blue ball everyone, pay off people to go away and are not willing to deploy yourself to look for content? Thats another one of your coalition cause and effect. Dont blame eve or CCP for it. Beside we are the only game in towm in the north at the momment. CCP wants to encourate small warfare. Fozzy sov does that. If it did not, you will not be here complaining. This does not mean that the large battle wont happen, but if you keep blue balling, its your coalition fault only.
Faenir Antollare The Idiot Kings Get Off My Lawn 387	Posted - 2015.08.05 10:23:23 - [164] - Quote I've learnt to hurry up and wait whilst orbiting gates menacingly. RiP BooBoo 26/7/1971 - 23/7/2014 My Lady My Love My Life My Wife
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1033	Posted - 2015.08.05 10:41:47 - [165] - Quote Icycle wrote: Raz Xym wrote: My experience for far has only been with cleaning up unanswered trolling events. And cleaning up after these is a bother. But perhaps they need to be bothersome, to encourage people to react to the initial flip. So far, in my opinion, the general consensus in most fleets seems to be.... this sucks. I tend to agree the amount of organization/work just to perform the save is larger than the initial trolling action. Now I can come up with reasons why this is good and bad. But, for me, it is hard to really comment on this new system until there is an actual real invasion attempt. Overall I think the system has merits. The initial flip might be a little to open to trolls. But as I suggested, this can be good and bad. Having been one of the people involved with cleaning up after a troll event, I can definitely.... yawn. But hey... these events would not have happened, most likely could not have happened under the old mechanism. And as people realize how bothersome the cleanup is, the less chance they will occur unanswered. Unless of course, they should not own the space in question. Now... we just need to see it action. Enough of these trolling events. I want to see a full blown old fashioned organized invasion with defenders who can defend themselves. I know, wishful thinking. Note: These are my opinions and my opinions alone. They in no way reflect the thoughts of anyone else. But how are you going to see full action deployment invasion when you blue ball everyone, pay off people to go away and are not willing to deploy yourself to look for content? Thats another one of your coalition cause and effect. Dont blame eve or CCP for it. Beside we are the only game in towm in the north at the momment. CCP wants to encourate small warfare. Fozzy sov does that. If it did not, you will not be here complaining. This does not mean that the large battle wont happen, but if you keep blue balling, its your coalition fault only. It's kind of hard to blueball when there's nothing even remotely credible as a threat for 50 jumps. I think the word you were looking for is blobbing. You guys keep getting your buzzwords mixed up.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 71	Posted - 2015.08.05 11:26:16 - [166] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Icycle wrote: Raz Xym wrote: My experience for far has only been with cleaning up unanswered trolling events. And cleaning up after these is a bother. But perhaps they need to be bothersome, to encourage people to react to the initial flip. So far, in my opinion, the general consensus in most fleets seems to be.... this sucks. I tend to agree the amount of organization/work just to perform the save is larger than the initial trolling action. Now I can come up with reasons why this is good and bad. But, for me, it is hard to really comment on this new system until there is an actual real invasion attempt. Overall I think the system has merits. The initial flip might be a little to open to trolls. But as I suggested, this can be good and bad. Having been one of the people involved with cleaning up after a troll event, I can definitely.... yawn. But hey... these events would not have happened, most likely could not have happened under the old mechanism. And as people realize how bothersome the cleanup is, the less chance they will occur unanswered. Unless of course, they should not own the space in question. Now... we just need to see it action. Enough of these trolling events. I want to see a full blown old fashioned organized invasion with defenders who can defend themselves. I know, wishful thinking. Note: These are my opinions and my opinions alone. They in no way reflect the thoughts of anyone else. But how are you going to see full action deployment invasion when you blue ball everyone, pay off people to go away and are not willing to deploy yourself to look for content? Thats another one of your coalition cause and effect. Dont blame eve or CCP for it. Beside we are the only game in towm in the north at the momment. CCP wants to encourate small warfare. Fozzy sov does that. If it did not, you will not be here complaining. This does not mean that the large battle wont happen, but if you keep blue balling, its your coalition fault only. It's kind of hard to blueball when there's nothing even remotely credible as a threat for 50 jumps. I think the word you were looking for is blobbing. You guys keep getting your buzzwords mixed up. Nope, nothing with blobbing. You can blob all you want as log as you got the numbers and sufficient neutrals. You got too many allied and not enough neutrals near by. Set to neutral allies or neighbours. Get on pvp ship, blow stuff up!
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 71	Posted - 2015.08.05 11:27:31 - [167] - Quote These are common themes I see over and over again. I will probably update this as more come. I dont want to spend the day running after entosis ships! Owning sov/ihubs/stations is too tredious! This is null sec. Its meant to be very dangerous. If you want to own something, you got to protect it. If you cant protect its very likelly you are either out gunned or have over extended your territories and do not have sufficient backup in the area. Move into the area and defend and its very unlikelly it will get entosied or consolidate dont over extend your territories. New sov does not encourages big battles! New sov is borring! The sov is a small help to encourage small gang warfare instead of a big slugfest. Quit blue balling everyone you find. Set your neightbours to neut and let the slug fest begin Deploy to an enemy territory, put a pos and attack them. Dont blame CCP or new sov for your wrong doing. Dont wait for the fun come to you. If you are an entity that pays off enemies to go away, stop doing it if you want more action. New entosing is like like mining! I want to shoot structures not entosis them! While it may look like a mining lasor I dont see it that way. I actually see it like a lasor. It has exact same mechanics. It get reinforced and needs to be defended when comes out of reinforcement and blows up at the end just like in previous sov. "Troll ceptor" entosis! What you call a troll ceptor is a genuine to me attempt to attack and herass an enemy. They are easy to defend against. A frigate with entosis cant warp away and has to orbit at 25km. Really easy to kill. A cruiser with tech 2 entosis cant warp away. Also easy to kill and catch with a ceptor. You can also disrupt their entosis easelly with a dampener or ECM. If you find your systems are getting entosied a lot, its cos they its very likelly you have over extended your territory and have many empty or unoccupied. If it not, it would not get entosied. If its empty and you are not living in it, its fair game and should be allowed to get entosied. If you want to counter this, them move to the system. Easy fix. If you have over extended, the drop sov in some of the regions and consolidate your power in less regions. This will effectivelly prevent others from entosing. Otherwise get renters or allies to occupy the systems and maybe they can help with the system defence. Cant catch a "Troll ceptor" nullified! Very easy to catch, get a fast ship lock ship like a keres and fill it with sebos and a point. Trust me, it works. For the really hard ones, you can compensate with implants and or a booster. CCP did not provide the tool with new sov! True. CCP need to provide ways to see who attack, where, system status etc in game rather than offgame. I would also like for it to allow still to be visible off game as not all of us can always have a client at that momment. Entosis should only be allowed in Battleships! Entosis ship should do 0 m/s speed! You are over thinking it. Battleships need a buff in targetting, damage and tanking. Battleships a middle layer between marauders and the current battleship. The whole concept of entosis and battleship is contradictory. Entosis ship should not do 0 metres per second cos its not a disposable cyno ship. Its a very expensive module and the ship cannot warp. Its only chance is to try to out run you. Bombers should be nerfed! A properly fit carrier will need aproximatelly 30+ bombers to kill within 2 minutes. Thats a lot of people to kill one carrier. You can improve the tank even with a triage or have a cyno module for call for backup. Also you can use links or even a booster to tank better. Bombers are weak and easy to kill. Any frigate can kill a bomber easy.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6740	Posted - 2015.08.05 11:28:00 - [168] - Quote with the power of miss-a-death (because you're a trollceptor and :getout:), no buzzword is irrelevant as long as applied negatively to imperium ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1620	Posted - 2015.08.05 11:40:10 - [169] - Quote ISD Buldath wrote: Let's not Post Any more kill mails On general Discussion, Thanks. That is for Crime and punishment. MFW when it's 2015 and this rule still exists.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2164	Posted - 2015.08.05 11:47:32 - [170] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Jayne Fillon wrote: CCP doesn't like the term "fozziesov" which implies that this update has been a one man show. CCP Fozzie is the lead designer for Team 5-0, which is the team responsible for the sovereignty overhaul. There are 7 developers on Team 5-0, including CCP Mimic, CCP Punkturis, CCP Masterplan and CCP Lebowski. Ok, how about "FoMiPuMaLe SOV?" CCP Mimic, CCP Lebowski, CCP Fozzie, CCP Masterplan and CCP Punkturis +SOV Can also be the PuMa FML team. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13954	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:04:06 - [171] - Quote Icycle wrote: What you regard as "trolling" to me is a genuine attack/herass to an IHUB, TCU or a Station. Why? The person doing so has no desire to actually take the space or the structure. They're merely abusing the extremely low bar for the attacker that CCP has set. Sounds like trolling to me. So, I ask you this. Why should anyone without a desire to actually commit to an attack be allowed to do so in the first place? Quote: If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple. It happens whether you were living in it or not. It literally doesn't matter, because you still have to go play whack a mole with interceptors one way or the other. Nevermind that, in doing so, you are forced to devote a great deal of your time per day chasing those broken ships. And, I should point out, that while you're doing so, you aren't living in your space either, or doing anything with your space. You're either babysitting every structure in your entire alliance, or chasing down the most broken hulls in the game. "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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 71	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:19:49 - [172] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Icycle wrote: What you regard as "trolling" to me is a genuine attack/herass to an IHUB, TCU or a Station. Why? The person doing so has no desire to actually take the space or the structure. They're merely abusing the extremely low bar for the attacker that CCP has set. Sounds like trolling to me. So, I ask you this. Why should anyone without a desire to actually commit to an attack be allowed to do so in the first place? Quote: If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple. It happens whether you were living in it or not. It literally doesn't matter, because you still have to go play whack a mole with interceptors one way or the other. Nevermind that, in doing so, you are forced to devote a great deal of your time per day chasing those broken ships. And, I should point out, that while you're doing so, you aren't living in your space either, or doing anything with your space. You're either babysitting every structure in your entire alliance, or chasing down the most broken hulls in the game. I dont see it as an abuse. You can agree to attack sov or not. Its a choice. You can take it or not its also a chice. Why is it obligatory to take it? Its not a troll. Its only a troll if you choose to see it that way. I see it as an attack/herass. Its the front line. Front lines are meant to be attacked not carebear heaven area. Thats why they are called the front lines! It could bea large army, it could be a small army, it could be some bandits passing by. Its the font lines and its meant to be attacked. 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. You see your house on fine and do nothing, your choice! I would question is why you would let it happen when you live in the system in the first place? I know I wouldnt unless I dont live in it or over extended or dont have the numbers to protect it. You dont have to baby sit your entire alliance, but only the systems that are you can protect without over extending. If you over extended, its like any other game. You leave yourself weak to a counter attack!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6741	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:20:41 - [173] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Quote: If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple. It happens whether you were living in it or not. It literally doesn't matter, because you still have to go play whack a mole with interceptors one way or the other. Nevermind that, in doing so, you are forced to devote a great deal of your time per day chasing those broken ships. And, I should point out, that while you're doing so, you aren't living in your space either, or doing anything with your space. You're either babysitting every structure in your entire alliance, or chasing down the most broken hulls in the game. So Whack-a-mole sov really is more accurate than occupancy ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13956	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:25:57 - [174] - Quote Icycle wrote: I dont see it as an abuse. Of course YOU don't. Most people don't have the ability to look at something honestly, if said thing benefits them, or even seems to benefit them. Quote: Why is it obligatory to take it? This right here. That's why it's trolling. Quote: Front lines are meant to be attacked not carebear heaven area. Then go kill somebody, don't fly around in an interceptor with no freaking guns. Quote: You dont have to baby sit your entire alliance, but only the systems that are you can protect without over extending. And I suppose your definition of "over extending" is "not having five people per system on hand to chase down interceptors instead of actually playing the game or using their space". That's not local conflict. That's babysitting. And that's not fun, engaging gameplay. "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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6488	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:40:16 - [175] - 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!
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 71	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:50:40 - [176] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Icycle wrote: I dont see it as an abuse. Of course YOU don't. Most people don't have the ability to look at something honestly, if said thing benefits them, or even seems to benefit them. Quote: Why is it obligatory to take it? This right here. That's why it's trolling. Quote: Front lines are meant to be attacked not carebear heaven area. Then go kill somebody, don't fly around in an interceptor with no freaking guns. Quote: You dont have to baby sit your entire alliance, but only the systems that are you can protect without over extending. And I suppose your definition of "over extending" is "not having five people per system on hand to chase down interceptors instead of actually playing the game or using their space". That's not local conflict. That's babysitting. And that's not fun, engaging gameplay. 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? 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. 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. So you either get more people to live in the system or you consolidate your forces to other systems and abbandon the ones you obviously over extended and cant defend!
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:57:15 - [177] - Quote Lets take it one step at a time: Icycle, would you have a problem if the Entosis links were costed at 1 billion isk?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13960	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:01:43 - [178] - Quote Icycle wrote: So its trolling to attack and not take sov when all I do is gorrilla warfare? First, it's guerrilla, not gorilla. One is a method of warfare, and one is a large ape. Secondly, it's not guerrilla, or warfare, it's a video game. If you really want to do things like that, go kill people. It's not like there is Concord in nullsec, you don't have anything stopping you from going out and shooting them. Quote: Definition of extending is having sufficient numbers to cover the defence of the system. I already know your source is your rear end, but go ahead and try to prove that statement. Quote: If you get constantly attacked in a system by 20 and you only got 5, well...you are over gunned. But that's not what we're talking about at all. Nice try, though. Quote: Defend what you think is yours or lose it to a someone that wants it more than you do! Except that you don't want it, you admitted that a while ago. You just want to troll. "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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 71	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:03:39 - [179] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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! 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13960	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:06:32 - [180] - Quote Icycle wrote: FozzySov is meant to give a small bonus to smaller entities to be able to face a larger one. Once again, your source is your ass. It is supposed to promote occupancy, which despite what you might think, does not mean babysitting your structures. Quote: Why should you get to keep space you dont use? Whether they keep it or not has nothing to do with whether they live in it. It depends entirely on their tolerance for babysitting and whack a mole. "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.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 71	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:07:29 - [181] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Lets take it one step at a time: Icycle, would you have a problem if the Entosis links were costed at 1 billion isk? Yep. Whats your point?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13960	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:09:53 - [182] - Quote Icycle wrote: Grouchy Smurf wrote: Lets take it one step at a time: Icycle, would you have a problem if the Entosis links were costed at 1 billion isk? Yep. Whats your point? His point, from what I can tell anyway, is that you object to anything that would require the attacker to have a commitment above functionally zero. Which means that you're just in it to troll, not actually participate in sov warfare. Hell, calling it "sov warfare" is an oxymoron at this point, since from what I can tell CCP has actually managed to find something even more toxic than faction "warfare". "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.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:10:48 - [183] - Quote Why do you find that a commitment of 1 billion ISK for a module that is used to capture space at alliance level is bothersome? Don't worry, we are taking it one step at a time. We will reach the overall point.
Captain Awkward Republic University Minmatar Republic 34	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:10:54 - [184] - Quote Icycle wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: You know that a system is bad when mining is more rewarding game play than chasing away sov trolls. At least you get something with mining. You guys are obsessed with the word "trolling" What you regard as "trolling" to me is a genuine attack/herass to an IHUB, TCU or a Station. If you dont want to protect it around the clock in space that you dont live well thats your issue but if you do want to protect it then you cant blame it on CCP or call it trolling just cos you decide to defend a system that is really far away from your home systems and that you dont actually bother living in it. To me its all your fault. If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple. The main goal of the new sov mechanic is that you can take weakly defendet or undefendet sov as a smaller entity. I gues we can agree that this goal has bin achieved. If you attack sov with the purpose of keeping (and defending) it, then thats not trolling. You you attack sov without the entention to keep it or even provoke a fight but just to anoy the sov holders, well thats prety clear trolling. So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13960	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:14:06 - [185] - Quote Captain Awkward wrote: So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal. To any of them actually paying attention to this thread, (bloody unlikely, I know, since they have ignored feedback on this for so long anyway), the answer to this question is "hugely increase the CPU requirements for the entosis modules". Nothing below a battlecruiser should be able to fit these things without sacrificing lots of fitting room. A novel idea would be to make it apply to the battlecruiser's command links bonus, in fact. That'd give that ship class a much needed shot in the arm. "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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:48:06 - [186] - 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!
Jenshae Chiroptera 2164	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:48:20 - [187] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: ... So Whack-a-Mole sov really is more accurate than occupancy I am glad my description is catching on. Now, to sharpen this up consider this: Make a fleet. Put 6 ships in a system, 3x ECM and 3x wand ship Spread those teams of 6 across a region. Spread out some scouts. ECM your own ships off the structures when defenders appear. Cloak up. Activate another team. Make the defenders run in circles, trying to whack teams. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1502	Posted - 2015.08.05 13:53:05 - [188] - Quote Captain Awkward wrote: So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal. Exactly. If the defenders are spread too thin to show up, then they lose the space. If the defenders do not want to fight, they lose the space. If the attackers don't really want to take the space, there should not be much they can do. If the defenders do not show up at all, then the attackers can Entosis their sov just as easily in a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship as they can in an Interceptor. If the defenders do show up, then having a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship on field is more likely to result in a fight. Fights are a good thing. They are, after all, pretty much the whole point of this game. The sovereignty system should reward people who are willing to fight, not people who do not want to fight. This simple rule should apply just as much to the offense as the defense. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 79	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:06:43 - [189] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Why do you find that a commitment of 1 billion ISK for a module that is used to capture space at alliance level is bothersome? Don't worry, we are taking it one step at a time. We will reach the overall point. Very easy. You put an shop in the middle of war zone without no one to protect it do you?
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:11:47 - [190] - Quote So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that: a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members. Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity?

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 79	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:11:56 - [191] - Quote Captain Awkward wrote: Icycle wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: You know that a system is bad when mining is more rewarding game play than chasing away sov trolls. At least you get something with mining. You guys are obsessed with the word "trolling" What you regard as "trolling" to me is a genuine attack/herass to an IHUB, TCU or a Station. If you dont want to protect it around the clock in space that you dont live well thats your issue but if you do want to protect it then you cant blame it on CCP or call it trolling just cos you decide to defend a system that is really far away from your home systems and that you dont actually bother living in it. To me its all your fault. If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple. The main goal of the new sov mechanic is that you can take weakly defendet or undefendet sov as a smaller entity. I gues we can agree that this goal has been achieved. If you attack sov with the purpose of keeping (and defending) it, then thats not trolling. If you attack sov without the intention to keep it or even provoke a fight but just to anoy the sov holders, well thats prety clear trolling. So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal. 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.
Nou Mene Out of Focus Odin's Call 7	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:13:56 - [192] - Quote Reposting myself from a closed thread Quote: First, i want to know whats so interesting to do in your Null Sec that makes hunting ceptors "unfun", i can hardly imagine a DAILY more engaging activity. Second, as someone pointed, if every entosis link (t1) is around 35m, then every 2 ceptor killed you expect to get 35m on loot. If the problem (during your SHORT vulneravility window) is so acute then is a pretty profitable activity. Third, you shouldnt be hunting them, if it is in your system. Warp once in an hour (good indexes) to kill the ceptor, there are many options to kill them quite quickly. (HINT: t3d work wonders). If is an empty system, working as intended: the system has no value for you, you should lose it. Fourth, if the big groups have hundreds or thousands of pilots, just form an anti-ceptor (or similar) group to keep things going, flying light. Pay them if you want. Carebears can keep doing their own stuff. If the "trolling" faction really wants sov, they are going to bring bigger assets, you will have bigger fights. Finally, all this makes forming an ANTI-CEPTOR MERCENARY CORP (ACMC) [just coining the term] a really tempting idea.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 79	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:17:40 - [193] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that: a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members. Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity? In terms i dont want the entosis to be expensive cos you dont need a bazzoka to attack a shop. I dont think the ihub should be too expensive either bytherway. I dont know about you but we usually support entosis ships with several other ships to get agro and kill something also. We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system. One man can do nothing vs people that live in that area. Unless you dont live in that area ofcource and dont happen to be there cos you dont live there. Then its fair game.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 29	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:17:48 - [194] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Why? The person doing so has no desire to actually take the space or the structure. They're merely abusing the extremely low bar for the attacker that CCP has set. Using a game mechanic in an unintended way? Like bumping and hyperdunking? Funny how we all selectively choose which pieces of 'unintended gameplay' should be allowed and which should not.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:25:14 - [195] - Quote Icycle wrote: Grouchy Smurf wrote: So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that: a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members. Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity? In terms i dont want the entosis to be expensive cos you dont need a bazzoka to attack a shop. I dont think the ihub should be too expensive either bytherway. I dont know about you but we usually support entosis ships with several other ships to get agro and kill something also. We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system. One man can do nothing vs people that live in that area. Unless you dont live in that area ofcource and dont happen to be there cos you dont live there. Then its fair game. Can you answer the question stated or will you simply talk about "bazookas" , "shops" and other things that have nothing to do with the game? The question was: Why do you think that capturing a system as alliance level is a 1-man activity. We reached to that question by following your statements that Entosis links shouldn't be 1 billion ISK each because you don't want to protect them with additional members. If you think I misunderstood one of those statements or if you changed your mind, please let me know and I will reconsider.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 79	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:25:45 - [196] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Captain Awkward wrote: So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal. Exactly. If the defenders are spread too thin to show up, then they lose the space. If the defenders do not want to fight, they lose the space. If the attackers don't really want to take the space, there should not be much they can do. If the defenders do not show up at all, then the attackers can Entosis their sov just as easily in a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship as they can in an Interceptor. If the defenders do show up, then having a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship on field is more likely to result in a fight. Fights are a good thing. They are, after all, pretty much the whole point of this game. The sovereignty system should reward people who are willing to fight, not people who do not want to fight. This simple rule should apply just as much to the offense as the defense. Well if the defender is spread to thin...then its not really the attackers fault. CCP said this was coming. You guys restructured but i think you did a bad job in some areas and a good in others. If the defender does not fight they lose space. If the attacker does not figth, it does not get the space. Its whats happening currently and what i support. Defend your space or lose it. Its normal. Nothing new in Eve. If the defender fight for it and wins, he keeps it exactly as its happenig now. Yes sov should reward those willing to fight. If they win they win if they lose they lose. Exactly whats happening now. You guys failed to defend one system and lost sov. Then you guys attacked it again and we failed to defend it. We lost it. Its correct.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13966	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:28:32 - [197] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Using a game mechanic in an unintended way? Like bumping and hyperdunking? Not much at all like them, actually. This is intended, they just intended it badly, and as such it warrants discussion. Much like the recent UI changes. "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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 79	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:34:30 - [198] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Icycle wrote: Grouchy Smurf wrote: So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that: a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members. Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity? In terms i dont want the entosis to be expensive cos you dont need a bazzoka to attack a shop. I dont think the ihub should be too expensive either bytherway. I dont know about you but we usually support entosis ships with several other ships to get agro and kill something also. We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system. One man can do nothing vs people that live in that area. Unless you dont live in that area ofcource and dont happen to be there cos you dont live there. Then its fair game. Can you answer the question stated or will you simply talk about "bazookas" , "shops" and other things that have nothing to do with the game? The question was: Why do you think that capturing a system as alliance level is a 1-man activity. We reached to that question by following your statements that Entosis links shouldn't be 1 billion ISK each because you don't want to protect them with additional members. If you think I misunderstood one of those statements or if you changed your mind, please let me know and I will reconsider. a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because I dont think the entosis should be more expensive than it already is cos I dont think you it normal to place a TCU or a IHUB or a station in an area if dont live in it or area not willing to protect it or thats heavelly contested. Why should I have to pay cos you desided to put a base in a system and leave it empty and complain when you got to defend it? Its your fault. Dont put expensive stuff in an area you can not protect. Or dont upgrade an area you cannot protect! b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members. We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system. If someone desides to do an entosis without any backup, I would concider it suicide cos they get caught so easy. But yes if they want to do it why not? Its gorilla warfare!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2398	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:43:53 - [199] - Quote 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.... F Would you like to know more?
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:45:21 - [200] - Quote Again, you are adding things that no one talked about. I never mentioned TCUs, iHUBS, people using a system or not. Do not try to move the goal posts. I could easily reply by saying "Because I also used a 1 billion ISK module to put a base in that system that I don't use" but that will just point the discussion to a different area. I am trying to help you identify the problem that the overwhelming majority of alliances have right now: Disposable ships that engage in Sov warfare without ever intended to capture it. I simply asked why would you, personally, be opposed to a module which enables the capture of space at an alliance level, to be costed at 1 billion ISK. It is my understanding that you really don't have an solid response to this other than "I don't like it". If the system is emply / not used, then your 1 billion investment is safe. If you have a support fleet, then your 1 billion investment is, relatively, safe. So it makes no difference whatsoever to you / MoA. Why do you have a problem with investing a great some of money when you plan capturing space at alliance level? ( I keep repeating the "alliance level" line again and again because it's what the mechanic is all about. You are not supposed to pay for the entosis link by yourself, your whole alliance has to chip in)

Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 29	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:50:44 - [201] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: 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.... F You could you know, actually respond to what I said instead of sidestepping. If you have a few people active in a system 90% of the time, protecting it isn't a big deal. If you don't have active people there, should you really hold it? Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Not much at all like them, actually. This is intended, they just intended it badly, and as such it warrants discussion. Much like the recent UI changes. As people said when bumping and hyperdunking started happening: HTFU and adapt. This is EVE. Don't whine and run to CCP just because your particular style of play just got harder. Look, I absolutely understand the frustration with trollceptors. I just think SOMETHING needs to change to shake up null, and at this point any change, anything different is not a bad thing. Should we replace the current system with something better? Maybe, but given the current stagnation, IMO any change is a positive.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:54:58 - [202] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: not actually participate in sov warfare. Well, they're trolling sov and causing a response. You can argue about what trolling and warfare REALLY mean, but they are participating in sov by doing so. I don't see the problem with Huns burning border villages in the sov. system. It's the CODE equivalent to nullsec. If the bears are lazy, they'll lose their ship or, in this case, space.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:59:24 - [203] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: not actually participate in sov warfare. It's the CODE equivalent to nullsec. If the bears are lazy, they'll lose their ship or, in this case, space. The problem is that CODE operates either at a loss (for troll ganking) or tries to earn a profit (by selecting targets and minimizing loses). These outcomes do not exist with Sov trolling. It's just you spending time so they can spend 10 times as much time.
Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 384	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:00:31 - [204] - Quote Fuque Sathienne wrote: Fozzie sov was a good idea, poorly implemented Hmmm... Faction Warfare was a good idea, poor implemented POS construction was a good idea, poorly implemented Mission running was a good idea, poorly implemented Research and Development was a good idea, poorly implemented Asteroid mining was a good idea, poorly implemented Dust 514 was a good idea, poorly implemented Incarna was a good idea, poorly implemented Exploding Jovians was a weird idea, poorly implemented Sansha Incursions was a good idea, poorly implemented Robbing the mafia was a bad idea, poorly implemented Johnny Four Fingers was the patsy from Ikea, poor guy cemented -_-_-_-_-\\\ This line is about legendary Medea, strangely indented YOU WONT TAKE ME TO KOREA, capitalization relented A thought occurred during diarrhea, italics are words half bented No White Castle at the Galleria, brochure misrepresented Dumped by waifu Maria, weeaboo tears prevented Excellent flavor of Tortilla, sadly bourbon scented No goddamn content in Rhea! Anger is now vented You look more homeless than Jerry Garcia, brutally condescended The artificial breasts of Sophia, a thing I invented Momma Mia! This post became demented! Like a young man on Aliyah, my time here was merely rented
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 79	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:08:27 - [205] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? So you want to have fun and always win? Be untouchable. 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 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. I dont see why its boring to defend against a ceptor thats attacking sov. I say its less boring than gate camping or station camping and you guys are masters at that. Now that to me is really watching paint dry. I dont hear you complaining about that! I dont care if you camp me or gate camp. I am nimble. I will get out as I usually do =). I dont condier CCP gone too far. Its a change of mindset. You can concider a cloaky in local a terrible thing or you can still get in fleet and wait for it to attack you and counter jump him. Its the same thin. A change of mind set. In here the change of mind set is you over extended. Consolidate your power just exactly as CCP intended for you to do. 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!
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13966	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:09:15 - [206] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: As people said when bumping and hyperdunking started happening: HTFU and adapt. This is EVE. Don't whine and run to CCP just because your particular style of play just got harder. Nothing about my playstyle got harder. I live in highsec. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize flaws when I see them. This isn't about some dumbfuck bear who can't figure out to use webs, this is sovereignty, one of the defining features of EVE Online. Furthermore, unlike bumping, which is part of the base physics engine of the game and can't feasibly be changed, this is something that CCP has complete control over. Quote: Look, I absolutely understand the frustration with trollceptors. I just think SOMETHING needs to change to shake up null, and at this point any change, anything different is not a bad thing. Do you realize just how stupid a thing this is to say? You would literally rather a bad change than working on something. I for one think that "something must be done!" is the battlecry of the, and I quote, "useful idiot". "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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:13:02 - [207] - 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!
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13966	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:13:59 - [208] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: You can argue about what trolling and warfare REALLY mean, but they are participating in sov by doing so. And this is yet another example of why lowering the bar is a bad idea. "using the mechanic at all" is "participating", according to you. But as out friend from MOA admitted, they are not there to participate, they are there to use the extremely low barrier of effort for the attacker to kill the defender with boredom, rather than actually fight for space. And apparently, some people view that as a good thing, instead of a potential recipe for a lot of unsubs. Quote: It's the CODE equivalent to nullsec. If the bears are lazy, they'll lose their ship or, in this case, space. Except that it's not about "lazy", insofar as doing such a simple thing as tanking your freighter/barge, not autopiloting, using webs, and orbiting your asteroid. Unless you think unwillingness to babysit structures for hours at a time (you know, in lieu of actually using your space, playing the game, or having fun) counts as "lazy". "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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:15:49 - [209] - 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!
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13966	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:16:06 - [210] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. I do not often agree with Lucas, and that's a huge understatement. I think that, by and large, if he's not trolling then he is more or less without merit of any kind. But he's right about this. That's FozzieSov in a nutshell. Zero burden of effort on the attacker, all of it on the defender. "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.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:19:36 - [211] - 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!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:24:25 - [212] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Unless you think unwillingness to babysit structures for hours at a time (you know, in lieu of actually using your space, playing the game, or having fun) counts as "lazy". You could make the same argument about using your alt to do missions instead of web your freighter. Not using your alt to web your freigher is lazy. Not having a scout and intel is lazy. Change a word or two there are you have why ceptors can troll your sov.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 79	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:27:19 - [213] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Again, you are adding things that no one talked about. I never mentioned TCUs, iHUBS, people using a system or not. Do not try to move the goal posts. I could easily reply by saying "Because I also used a 1 billion ISK module to put a base in that system that I don't use" but that will just point the discussion to a different area. I am trying to help you identify the problem that the overwhelming majority of alliances have right now: Disposable ships that engage in Sov warfare without ever intended to capture it. I simply asked why would you, personally, be opposed to a module which enables the capture of space at an alliance level, to be costed at 1 billion ISK. It is my understanding that you really don't have an solid response to this other than "I don't like it". If the system is emply / not used, then your 1 billion investment is safe. If you have a support fleet, then your 1 billion investment is, relatively, safe. So it makes no difference whatsoever to you / MoA. Why do you have a problem with investing a great sum of money when you plan capturing space at alliance level? ( I keep repeating the "alliance level" line again and again because it's what the mechanic is all about. You are not supposed to pay for the entosis link by yourself, your whole alliance has to chip in) The title of the thread is experince of Fozzie sov. Last time i checked fozzy sov is all about sov mechanics and capturing. The only thing you can capture are the stations. Everything else blows up after contested. Whats in Pure Blind? TCUs, IHUBs and stations and POSs. If you have full SRP and you get paind 200m per hour to attack something, I can understand that what we field is disposable for you. I can asure you that for MOA its not. We dont have the luxuries. It does not mean we dont bring out others in the past thought. We do scimies + other often. If you concider a scimi + other cheap or throw away, more power to you. Its not for us by any stretch of the imagination. I oppose to a 1 b isk module cos the modules is very expensive as it is. Your mind set is till that you got to throw a billion to kill a billion. I oppose that mind set. If you are throwing a billion to kill a billion its NOT guerilla warfare. Its a contradiction. Guerilla are fast cheap and nimble. Not expensive and slow. Thats the army!
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13969	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:27:19 - [214] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: You could make the same argument about using your alt to do missions instead of web your freighter. wat.jpg 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. Quote: Not using your alt to web your freigher is lazy. Not having a scout and intel is lazy. Change a word or two there are you have why ceptors can troll your sov. Because interceptors are fundamentally broken examples of speed creep? Idk, I don't think it fits. Or did you mean because the Entosis link was foolishly given such a low barrier to entry? "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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13969	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:29:04 - [215] - Quote Icycle wrote: I oppose to a 1 b isk module cos the modules is very expensive as it is. Well, I finally found someone even more space poor than me. "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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:32:17 - [216] - 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!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:38:23 - [217] - Quote 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.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:43:24 - [218] - Quote Icycle wrote: The title of the thread is experince of Fozzie sov. Last time i checked fozzy sov is all about sov mechanics and capturing. The only thing you can capture are the stations. Everything else blows up after contested. Whats in Pure Blind? TCUs, IHUBs and stations and POSs. If you have full SRP and you get paind 200m per hour to attack something, I can understand that what we field is disposable for you. I can asure you that for MOA its not. We dont have the luxuries. It does not mean we dont bring out others in the past thought. We do scimies + other often. If you concider a scimi + other cheap, more power to you. Its not for us by any stretch of the imagination. I oppose to a 1 b isk module cos the modules is very expensive as it is. Your mind set is till that you got to throw a billion to kill a billion. I oppose that mind set. If you are throwing a billion to kill a billion its NOT guerilla warfare. Its a contradiction. Guerilla are fast cheap and nimble. Not expensive and slow. Thats the army! And everyone likes Fozziesov if we ignore some problems like Trollceptors or raising indexes desperacy. Which are the two topics every debate rotates about within these 11 pages of feedback. Now, in regards to 1 billion ISK modules, MoA has 1100 members. If you are not willing to send 1 million per member in an attempt to capture space, especially since it's unlikely that you will lose it as we mentioned earlier, then you should reconsider where the money goes. If you can't spend 1 million per member, what makes you think that you will be able to afford TCUs and Industry HUBs when you capture said system? And stop with that guerilla bullshit. You are not engaged in "guerilla warfare" with the Imperium as you are not damaging our economic infrastructure. KarmaFleet makes more on taxes alone than what you kill in a whole month. You want more proof that you don't participate in guerilla warfare? Half of Pure Blind is open for a second attack that will flip systems / iHubs and stations to you. Why don't you do it? You don't want the benefits of your so-called "guerilla warfare" ? Anyway, to return to the point of this discussion: You don't want 1 billion ISK Entosis links because you know that you won't be able to fly dozens of disposable ships per day just to troll someone. There is simply no other reason. ps: If you really can't afford 1 billion with 1100 members and 10% tax, I am sure that your directors milk the **** out of your members. You might want to have that checked out.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:43:49 - [219] - 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!
Antylus Tyrell Uedama Artisan Jams 12	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:49:10 - [220] - Quote Well this thread has convinced me to resub. I need to get into this trollceptor action. 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. 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.

Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:53:20 - [221] - Quote 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. But they are not trying to capture the systems. That's the problem. They don't want the space. There are 10 systems in Pure Blind right now that are "neutral" and wait for someone to go and capture the nodes.
Vol Arm'OOO Bagel and Lox 706	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:54:43 - [222] - Quote 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. While last year there was a summer decline, it was no where near has steep as this year. What ever can be said for fozzie sov, it has proven itself to not be eve Jesus. There has been no significant numbers of incoming folk, at least enough to outweigh the bitter vets it drove off, nor does it appear to have driven large numbers of players from empire to null. In fact, it appears that opinion can be broken down as follows: (1) the majority of eve folk, i.e. non-null dwellers, who view it as "meh" (2) null dwellers, who view it as "could be better." I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:55:59 - [223] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: I doubt that. None of the necessary skills have requisites, in-fact 2 hours was an over-estimate now that I check. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Immaterial to the point that he's no longer a threat to your node. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:00:50 - [224] - 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!
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 80	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:03:51 - [225] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. I think its unrealistic not to live or have anyone in the system and everything is Hunky Dorry aka zero effort to protect. I give more credit to the attacker than a person that does nothing and expects the system to be protected anyway. A single guy is not a threat to an esatablished coalition! A single guy to an unprotected system should be a threat to a system as is now! But as I said we dont do single guy cos once the alarm mail goes you guys come in big numbers. I dont see any active space reinforced. Its not happening. I do however see space not active been reinforced thougth which is fare. Eitherway if its active system then its easy to protect. Cloak an arazu and wait for someone to do something to it or get another ceptor and chase him out. If you form up a 20 man gang for one guy its your fault not the one guy. its ineficient specially in protected space. Thats your fault. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You watch too much propaganda and not enough facts. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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! Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 80	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:05:51 - [226] - Quote Antylus Tyrell wrote: Well this thread has convinced me to resub. I need to get into this trollceptor action. 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. 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. you are already subscribed or you would not be able to post
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:06:15 - [227] - Quote 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:08:55 - [228] - 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!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:14:13 - [229] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Because the bar for suicide ganking is so low, we have to scout and web or lose the hauler, even for just a shitfit destroyer. Literally the same arguments risk-averse carebears make about CODE.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:18:28 - [230] - 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!

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 80	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:20:19 - [231] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Icycle wrote: The title of the thread is experince of Fozzie sov. Last time i checked fozzy sov is all about sov mechanics and capturing. The only thing you can capture are the stations. Everything else blows up after contested. Whats in Pure Blind? TCUs, IHUBs and stations and POSs. If you have full SRP and you get paind 200m per hour to attack something, I can understand that what we field is disposable for you. I can asure you that for MOA its not. We dont have the luxuries. It does not mean we dont bring out others in the past thought. We do scimies + other often. If you concider a scimi + other cheap, more power to you. Its not for us by any stretch of the imagination. I oppose to a 1 b isk module cos the modules is very expensive as it is. Your mind set is till that you got to throw a billion to kill a billion. I oppose that mind set. If you are throwing a billion to kill a billion its NOT guerilla warfare. Its a contradiction. Guerilla are fast cheap and nimble. Not expensive and slow. Thats the army! And everyone likes Fozziesov if we ignore some problems like Trollceptors or raising indexes desperacy. Which are the two topics every debate rotates about within these 11 pages of feedback. Now, in regards to 1 billion ISK modules, MoA has 1100 members. If you are not willing to send 1 million per member in an attempt to capture space, especially since it's unlikely that you will lose it as we mentioned earlier, then you should reconsider where the money goes. If you can't spend 1 million per member, what makes you think that you will be able to afford TCUs and Industry HUBs when you capture said system? And stop with that guerilla bullshit. You are not engaged in "guerilla warfare" with the Imperium as you are not damaging our economic infrastructure. KarmaFleet makes more on taxes alone than what you kill in a whole month. You want more proof that you don't participate in guerilla warfare? Half of Pure Blind is open for a second attack that will flip systems / iHubs and stations to you. Why don't you do it? Dont you want the benefits of your so-called "guerilla warfare" ? Anyway, to return to the point of this discussion: You don't want 1 billion ISK Entosis links because you know that you won't be able to fly dozens of disposable ships per day just to troll someone. There is simply no other reason. ps: If you really can't afford 1 billion with 1100 members and 10% tax, I am sure that your directors milk the **** out of your members. You might want to have that checked out. Can you listen to yourself? Every one send one million isk per person per entosis link per how many in a week? Whats next? Are you going to ask me to pay rent as well . You can sucker someone into that. Not us. I dont need to send any isk to anyone just cos you decide to leave something unprotected. Thats your fault. Not mine. Good, you can get Karma Fleet to keep taxing them. I certainly dont pay any crazy taxes. I would tell Karma Fleet to go where you know. I participate all the time. I two entosis ships and anyone that knows me that can confirm me entosing several and enforcing a few. Just cos you dont know it does not mean it did not happen. You are funny. You read something but you hear something else. You are like someone I know. I said I will not pay 1b to fight 1b cos simply you decided that I should pay that cos you think that it makes perfect sence to deploy stuff into a hot area, leave it undefended and expect everything will be ok when one person attack it. Directors dont milk nothing from me. I dont pay rent, I pay very little tax. I dont even do PI even thought I have several chracaters trained for it
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:22:03 - [232] - 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!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:28:22 - [233] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: the old system generated conflict Really? Because the Dominion sov system was universally reviled for not generating conflict either.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:39:07 - [234] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: the old system generated conflict Really? Because the Dominion sov system was universally reviled for not generating conflict either. 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!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 16:55:02 - [235] - Quote 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. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. I think you're confusing jump nerfs with aegis sov. They're separate issues. I too, dislike the fatigue mechanic. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 17:03:07 - [236] - 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!
Antylus Tyrell Uedama Artisan Jams 12	Posted - 2015.08.05 17:09:53 - [237] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You keep saying the system is boring, but 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. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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" 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.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 17:13:43 - [238] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Given the inertia of the major blocs, it's hard to be surprised that nothing major has come out of it yet. 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.
Snowmann Arrow Industries 8	Posted - 2015.08.05 17:16:37 - [239] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: 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. But they are not trying to capture the systems. That's the problem. They don't want the space. There are 10 systems in Pure Blind right now that are "neutral" and wait for someone to go and capture the nodes. That's simply called non-persistent offensive warfare, or more commonly know as "guerrilla warfare". It is as valid as any other type of warfare. I'm not sure why players think that guerrilla warfare shouldn't apply to Sov warfare as well. Note: Non persistent simply means they don't stick around to defend ground, as in what guerilla combatants normally do.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1621	Posted - 2015.08.05 17:34:18 - [240] - 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. While last year there was a summer decline, it was no where near has steep as this year. What ever can be said for fozzie sov, it has proven itself to not be eve Jesus. There has been no significant numbers of incoming folk, at least enough to outweigh the bitter vets it drove off, nor does it appear to have driven large numbers of players from empire to null. In fact, it appears that opinion can be broken down as follows: (1) the majority of eve folk, i.e. non-null dwellers, who view it as "meh" (2) null dwellers, who view it as "could be better." It's not null losing players, it's high sec... ...it's only been on TQ for a few weeks... ...and it's not even finished yet, there's structures and defences coming that will pretty much solve this trollceptor problem. Maybe it all should have been released at once, but we are talking about some rinky dink developer run out of an Icelandic garage so it's a miracle it even got this far.

Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play Black Legion. 797	Posted - 2015.08.05 17:57:04 - [241] - Quote Its good and bad. I love all the interceptor gangs that we can chew up, it brings a lot of nice little kills to the yard. This part is really good, and i like that we can have smaller gang warfare (even sometimes solo), OR large warfare, to deal with the same sov. Bad news is they cause alliances to run around mindlessly orbiting nodes for 3 or 4 hour ops to undo the ones we missed. You have no idea how boring, mundane, and unfun that is. I've only been back in eve a few days, and ive spent far more time re-securing nodes than pvp'ing the guys who challenged them in the first place. Re-securing challenged systems should be easier if theres no attacking force in the area. "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2398	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:03:25 - [242] - Quote The elephant in the room is hisec. We can no longer scratch our heads and wonder why we are always sniffing for meagre content in losec or null, despite the best intentions of Aegis-SOV and offering a 'land rush' carrot. With realities such as this, and a hisec that promotes comfy living and stagnation, it's now time for hisec sticks. - Reduce the physical size of hisec by 80%. - Nerf ISK generation, content (remove lv3-4 missions, incursions, ice mining, etc), and lock safeties to green in hisec. - Improve ship-replacement insurance to counter ship-loss risk-aversion Send a clear message to all new players that hisec is just the 'practice area' or 'ready room' for losec/null, and gateway to joining a (or starting) a Brave Newbies or Pandemic Horde, to get into the actual game. Send a clear message that EvE online is now going to BE the nullsec thunderdome we have all been marketed, dreamed-of, but seldom see (unless one major FC calls anothers girlfriend fat...). Do this not, and continue to scratch your heads in self-delusional wonder on why after 10+ years of EvE history, (and despite big new player spikes caused by vids of BR-5 or big fights in the "This is EvE' trailer), overall player growth and retention remains stagnant...or worse. 10+ years in, and CCP still hasnt realized that they shoot themselves in the head with each new piece of content or carebear candy they provide in hisec. Its time. F Would you like to know more?
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:14:10 - [243] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Its time. CCP hire this man.
Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play Black Legion. 798	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:20:37 - [244] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: it's now time for hisec sticks. Yeah, highsec has always needed a nerf. I'd like to see Faction Warfare change the highsec NPC system sov, and maybe have higher taxes for players who are not favored by the faction who owns that sov. Definatly remove lvl4s from highsec, or make them harder, or longer, or something. lvl4s are mindless pinatas you can just keep hitting for big wads of cash, and i think that is bad for two reasons. One, it means you can become filthy rich with virtually no risk. But more, it is BORING and players will quit once they get bored of running the exact same missions over and over day in day out for months. I did. I used to be a carebear. I have Hulk skills, ran a highsec research POS, and i almost quit eve out of bordom. I happened to take a risk and joined the first 00 corp that would take me, and i've lived in nullsec ever since. But i imagine many players never do this, and they end up quitting and finding new games. We need to find more ways to coax players into pvp and nullsec. We need to shatter their idea of living like a pimp completely unchallenged by anyone. People who have full deadspace fitted golems running their 9000th mission is really sad. Theres nowhere else for that player to move up to, other than another game. "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 320	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:21:03 - [245] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: 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. But they are not trying to capture the systems. That's the problem. They don't want the space. There are 10 systems in Pure Blind right now that are "neutral" and wait for someone to go and capture the nodes. Wait - did you mean to say Pure Blind? Because the only unclaimed system there are NPC systems, which cannot be claimed.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 321	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:34:35 - [246] - Quote Terminal Insanity wrote: Its good and bad. I love all the interceptor gangs that we can chew up, it brings a lot of nice little kills to the yard. This part is really good, and i like that we can have smaller gang warfare (even sometimes solo), OR large warfare, to deal with the same sov. It's good to see you find this exciting despite how much others claim it is a boring job. :) Quote: Bad news is they cause alliances to run around mindlessly orbiting nodes for 3 or 4 hour ops to undo the ones we missed. You have no idea how boring, mundane, and unfun that is. I've only been back in eve a few days, and ive spent far more time re-securing nodes than pvp'ing the guys who challenged them in the first place. Re-securing challenged systems should be easier if theres no attacking force in the area. Looking over the Fountain map, I have to wonder why BL is bothering with many of those system. There's little to no ratting happening. Essentially zero PvP. Some of them barely even have any jumps. So why bother mindlessly orbiting a node for 3 or 4 hours to retain a TCU that does essentially nothing beyond change a little icon (one that can be disabled) on the upper left corner of the screen? N2-OQG comes to mind. BL should forget it. Let your TCU be blown up. Let somebody else online a TCU. You should simply not care. It's not important. It's not worth your time. Sov timers were means to provoke fights with Dominion Sov, but you need to readjust your strategy for Aegis Sov.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:43:03 - [247] - Quote Snowmann wrote: Note: Non persistent simply means they don't stick around to defend ground, as in what guerilla combatants normally do. No one said anything about defence. They are not ATTACKING them. Just look at them: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/sovereignty/campaigns/all/Pure_Blind These are nodes out of their reinforcement periods, where they can attack them and claim them for themselves. And they are not doing it because it's not worth their time. Similarly, the Imperium does not defend them because by doing so it will enable MoA to launch trollceptors once more.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:47:57 - [248] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: These are nodes out of their reinforcement periods, where they can attack them and claim them for themselves. And they are not doing it because it's not worth their time. Similarly, the Imperium does not defend them because by doing so it will enable MoA to launch trollceptors once more. Why is there supposed to be a major distinction between reinforcement and attack? They have to bring a ship to reinforce so that is an attack of sorts. The fact they aren't bringing in a token fleet to get welped afterward seems like nothing more than good sense.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:56:50 - [249] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: Why is there supposed to be a major distinction between reinforcement and attack? They have to bring a ship to reinforce so that is an attack of sorts. The fact they aren't bringing in a token fleet to get welped afterward seems like nothing more than good sense. I am not sure I understood your reply. The first attack on a node with Entosis link puts the structure in reinforced mode. After that period ends, a second attack either blow up the structure (IHUB, TCU) or captures it (Station). Or obviously puts it back to the defender's hands. There are structures in Pure blink right now that are on their second capture circle for days. MoA doesn't want to destroy them because they will lose their trolling targets and the Imperium doesn't want to flip them back to secured because it will give new targets to MoA's campaign.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 321	Posted - 2015.08.05 18:58:50 - [250] - Quote 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.

Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.08.05 19:09:21 - [251] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: The first attack on a node with Entosis link puts the structure in reinforced mode. After that period ends, a second attack either blow up the structure (IHUB, TCU) or captures it (Station). Or obviously puts it back to the defender's hands. Right. The point being the first action is an "attack," which you seemed to suggest wasn't the case above. Whether or not there is a followup doesn't mean there was no "attack," just that there was no followup. Grouchy Smurf wrote: There are structures in Pure blink right now that are on their second capture circle for days. MoA doesn't want to destroy them because they will lose their trolling targets and the Imperium doesn't want to flip them back to secured because it will give new targets to MoA's campaign. So it seems you've both arrived at new means to annoy one another. Content?
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 19:18:45 - [252] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: So it seems you've both arrived at new means to annoy one another. Content? That's what people complain about. There there is nothing going on, which was exactly what was the status quo during DominionSov. Billy Bojangle wrote: Right. The point being the first action is an "attack," which you seemed to suggest wasn't the case above. Whether or not there is a followup doesn't mean there was no "attack," just that there was no followup. Yeah, and why would they attack in the first instance if they don't intend to follow up? The answer is simply trolling. What makes it tedious and boring is that, compared to DomiSov, they attack risks way less (trollceptors instead of bomber or BS fleets / dread) and that the system doesn't return to defended slowly by it's own (regenerating shield in the old system) Do you think that those two points are over the top and outside of the spirit of the new system?
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.08.05 19:24:25 - [253] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: That's what people complain about. There there is nothing going on, which was exactly what was the status quo during DominionSov. Well that's a bit of a tangent is it not? If it's easy as you're billing it to be for a guerrilla attack on sov. to be mounted... surely it would be no sweat for Imperium forces to launch a large scale campaign against another target? Nevermind for a moment that you don't want the space because, as we also discussed, you don't have to take it at all and are free to burn it for the sake of burning it. The problem seems to be squarely on the shoulders to those who are not sending their forces hither to have fun rather than sitting at home playing wack-a-mole when everyone knows these skirmishers are no threat.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 19:34:29 - [254] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: surely it would be no sweat for Imperium forces to launch a large scale campaign against another target? Nevermind for a moment that you don't want the space because, as we also discussed, you don't have to take it at all and are free to burn it for the sake of burning it. Space aids. We can't risk serious resources without being able to escalate if needed, and we can't risk move escalation forces near the target if there is nothing that we really need in that area. Peacetime fleets for "Fun" go out almost every hour. You can be sure that they won't spend ~40 minutes looking at a node simply to reinforce a structure.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2015.08.05 19:48:57 - [255] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: We can't risk serious resources without being able to escalate if needed, and we can't risk move escalation forces near the target if there is nothing that we really need in that area. Risk from whom? I thought we agreed that there was trivial risk from the current reinforcements. Grouchy Smurf wrote: Peacetime fleets for "Fun" go out almost every hour. You can be sure that they won't spend ~40 minutes looking at a node simply to reinforce a structure. Well it's a good thing they don't have to. A fleet that size could reinforce hundreds of structures in that time.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 19:53:49 - [256] - 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!
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:04:45 - [257] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: Risk from whom? I thought we agreed that there was trivial risk from the current reinforcements. You said " large scale campaign against another target". I was thinking that you mean a real campaign against a real target . You know, the ones where capital ships are required. You were obviously talking about trollceptors, so the answer is: Why would we have our members do something tedious without strategic value that will not even result in combat? If one of our members wants to go troll sov he can do it, it's up to him. Although, I would suggest a medical examinations afterwards.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:05:19 - [258] - 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!
Robert Warner Back Door Burglars The Otherworld 102	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:07:58 - [259] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Its time. Pretty much most of what this guy says. Currently there is no carrot on a stick to draw players into null sec space. Hire this guy! Fozzie sov as it stands is a pathetically poor, uninteresting mechanic which I am surprised passed through the Developer's QA testing in its current rendition. Luckily the model on which Fozzie sov is based does contain ample room to customise the mechanics to be better fitting to improve gameplay and hopefully fuel some nice fights in null sec space.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 31	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:16:17 - [260] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Do you realize just how stupid a thing this is to say? You would literally rather a bad change than working on something. I for one think that "something must be done!" is the battlecry of the, and I quote, "useful idiot". This isn't stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Sometimes you stir the pot to see what emergent gameplay comes from it. Moreso in an environment like EVE than anywhere else. The current changes benefit newbies by giving small groups more incentive to fly through null (a positive) with the only downside of current sov holders having to have more people committed in systems they control. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Current sov holders have simply gotten so content with the ease of living out there (why I quit null, by the way) that they are now upset. And yes, trollceptors are extremely similar to bumping tactics. as with everything else, there are currently ways to counter troll ceptors, so use the existing methods instead of complaining. And hold off the backhand insults every other post, tiger. Some of us are capable of having a conversation without those. As it stands it's stupidly easy for someone to keep an alt in a system and simply alt tab back to that character to chase off a ceptor. If there aren't any kills, they can't entorsis anything, and people stop raging, people will stop using troll ceptors completely. Think of it this way: if every barge warped off before a gank could happen, and every freighter flew smart and didn't get ganked, would CODE still exist? no. Threads like this are feeding troll ceptors, and will do nothing but make more of them in game. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.

Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:17:37 - [261] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: You said " large scale campaign against another target". I was thinking that you mean a real campaign against a real target . You know, the ones where capital ships are required. You were obviously talking about trollceptors, so the answer is: Why would we have our members do something tedious without strategic value that will not even result in combat? If one of our members wants to go troll sov he can do it, it's up to him. Although, I would suggest a medical examinations afterwards. DBRB spent months grinding structures in stealth bombers, but all of a sudden this is too tedious and of no strategic value? Sorry, but we both know less than half of capswarm could dunk anyone besides a unified bloc of your opposition, which does not exist at present. It's not as though a "fugoons," coalition would spring up over the weekend if you went and helicopter-dicked some region next week. 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? Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Weak on home defense because they don't have the numbers to support said defense while deployed.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:24:20 - [262] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: DBRB spent months grinding structures in stealth bombers, but all of a sudden this is too tedious and of no strategic value? Spent months grinding structures back when they could escalate to fights.
Commander Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1537	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:25:26 - [263] - Quote The same trick is actually truer for null sec. Compress it by 80% so null sec people can't run and hide from null sec people? They appear to be a bored lot. Close the gap a bit. That's the medicine that's being asked for with highsec. If it works well in Null, Highsec is going to thrive. Test the new idea out on 15% of your wages first. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP
Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1539	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:25:26 - [264] - Quote The same trick is actually truer for null sec. Compress it by 80% so null sec people can't run and hide from null sec people? They appear to be a bored lot. Close the gap a bit. That's the medicine that's being asked for with highsec. If it works well in Null, Highsec is going to thrive. Test the new idea out on 15% of your wages first. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 32	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:28:34 - [265] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Billy Bojangle wrote: Why is there supposed to be a major distinction between reinforcement and attack? They have to bring a ship to reinforce so that is an attack of sorts. The fact they aren't bringing in a token fleet to get welped afterward seems like nothing more than good sense. I am not sure I understood your reply. The first attack on a node with Entosis link puts the structure in reinforced mode. After that period ends, a second attack either blow up the structure (IHUB, TCU) or captures it (Station). Or obviously puts it back to the defender's hands. There are structures in Pure blink right now that are on their second capture circle for days. MoA doesn't want to destroy them because they will lose their trolling targets and the Imperium doesn't want to flip them back to secured because it will give new targets to MoA's campaign. If anybody lived in those systems they'd be flipped back easily but nobody uses them. This is a prime example of Fozziesov in action. Some of those contested systems have less then 100 jumps per day through them.
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:31:30 - [266] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Spent months grinding structures back when they could escalate to fights. And this went away because aegis? Nope. It went away when the last coalition large enough to escalate against you imploded.
Grouchy Smurf KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:33:04 - [267] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: If anybody lived in those systems they'd be flipped back easily but nobody uses them. This is a prime example of Fozziesov in action. Some of those contested systems have less then 100 jumps per day through them. So, why don't you capture them? The idea of FozzieSov is to allow small alliances to fight and control areas of space from larger entities. Something that couldn't be done with Dominion mechanics. All those structures are open to capture, yet no small alliance has claimed them. And it makes no difference whatsoever to Imperium since the few members that live there still do their thing. Billy Bojangle wrote: Grouchy Smurf wrote: Spent months grinding structures back when they could escalate to fights. And this went away because aegis? Nope. It went away when the last coalition large enough to escalate against you imploded. Aegis did help. And bomber fleets are different than trollceptors.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:35:27 - [268] - 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 - [269] - 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!
Commander Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1538	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:43:28 - [270] - Quote If Mr goonie would like to drop all but his top 3 Corporations from his alliance: GoonWaffe [GEWNS]2762 pilots KarmaFleet [SNOOO]2070 pilots Wildly Inappropriate [W.I.]1143 pilots You would suddenly have 357 more corporations out in Null sec to look for content from. You would still be in the top 3 alliances out of 3074 total in game. Feel free to go ahead and do that first, before you moan that on there is no enemy for you to fight and you're size is more or an issue for your own members than anyone else in game. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP

Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1539	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:43:28 - [271] - Quote If Mr goonie would like to drop all but his top 3 Corporations from his alliance: GoonWaffe [GEWNS]2762 pilots KarmaFleet [SNOOO]2070 pilots Wildly Inappropriate [W.I.]1143 pilots You would suddenly have 357 more corporations out in Null sec to look for content from. You would still be in the top 3 alliances out of 3074 total in game. Feel free to go ahead and do that first, before you moan that on there is no enemy for you to fight and you're size is more or an issue for your own members than anyone else in game. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:44:08 - [272] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Aegis did help. And bomber fleets are different than trollceptors. I don't think anyone is arguing Aegis saved nullsec from coalition level risk aversion, but bombers grinding structures is literally slower at taking space than widespread ceptor trolling so you don't have a leg to stand on with this line of argument.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 31	Posted - 2015.08.05 20:44:41 - [273] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. This is a stepping stone towards fixing the issue. This causes pain to large sov holders. We are trying to make new eden feel 'big' again. 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. I don't hate the blue doughnut and it certainly isn't mysterious. I lived in it for years. Why did I live there? Because it was the safest and easiest way to live in EVE. It simply does to null what AFK miners do to high sec. You're so blinded by "we don't want to actually give up the systems we don't really use" that you can't rationally look at the mechanics.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:01:55 - [274] - 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!
Billy Bojangle Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:07:57 - [275] - Quote 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.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 32	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:10:01 - [276] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: No, it' causes boredom to them. Games are designed for entertainment, you're happy that it's not because of your "grr nullsec" attitude. Null was boring BEFORE this change. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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 Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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?
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 323	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:10:21 - [277] - Quote 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.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 383	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:13:00 - [278] - Quote I read the goals of Fozziesov and they have all been met with 100% success. The only 'problem' with fozziesov is that, "IT IS WORKING AS INTENDED". Nullsec wasnt supposed to like fozziesov and you should have anticipated that they would do anything and everything to get you to reverse fozziesov entirely or gut it till it essentially was nullified. Nullsec is currently using 100% of its energy to FIGHT Fozziesov and 0% of its energy USING fozziesov and as long as that is true they will be miserable as this is an intended consequence of taking that particular stance. If nullsec has learned one important lesson over the years it is this, "if we stomp our feet, pout and scream long enough, then like a poor excuse for a parent CCP will cave in to our desires". So the real question of the day isnt do we need to tweak fozziesov; the real question is will CCP cave into nullsec like a poor parent does to a spoiled brat or will CCP finally grow a spine and stand by what it knows is best for the game. CCP, we await your answer and in the coming weeks and months, what will we hear; that you have caved in yet again or have you finally adopted better parenting skills? Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:19:52 - [279] - 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 - [280] - 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!

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 323	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:29:02 - [281] - Quote 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:37:23 - [282] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6741	Posted - 2015.08.05 21:47:11 - [283] - Quote ceptorsov is definitely providing a great deal of "running away with MWD" content ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 384	Posted - 2015.08.05 22:36:19 - [284] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: ceptorsov is definitely providing a great deal of "running away with MWD" content Why is it that i can open the map, find any sov holder you can name, fly there and get into a fight any time of day or night, yet those of you that live there claim that you cannot find good fights and fozziesov is to blame? Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 33	Posted - 2015.08.05 22:44:07 - [285] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Null was boring BEFORE this change. No it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't this boring. Seriously, actually try out the mechanics. [/quote] 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. Lucas Kell wrote: It may be there plan but it's clearly not working. If sov null is having this much trouble defending their space, it's clearly working as intended. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Shrink your sov to areas you can control. 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? Babysitting your structures (ie, taking care of space you control) comes with the package. If you are in a WH, you keep an alt sitting on any incoming hole alt tabbed to listen for WH activations. Do you complain that you have to 'babysit your hole'? No, you realize you have to put in more effort to live in higher reward areas of space. Look, I hear what you're saying, but it's obvious at this point that we don't agree and most likely never will. People of a certain playstyle love this, people of another hate it. We can agree to disagree on this, and see what happens. If the collective playerbase decides to change it, then fine! I will happily adapt to whatever changes CCP makes (even if I don't agree with them), just as I've done for years. That kind of adaptation is part of EVE. Why don't you do the same for now? have a recruiting drive to get newbies to babysit for you (100 mil ISK as a reward for a month old player to sit on a structure goes a long way) so that you can get out and attack back. Get creative, figure out how to counter this. You know, like you should in a sandbox.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 22:55:56 - [286] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1200	Posted - 2015.08.05 22:58:41 - [287] - Quote Adapt. Stinks of ulterior and vested motives in here. ------------
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 385	Posted - 2015.08.05 23:09:59 - [288] - Quote If CCP would just get rid of structure bashing then we would fight ! CCP gets rid of structure bashing..... If CCP would just get rid of fozziesov then we would fight ! CCP contemplates getting rid of fozziesov...... nullsec: HILARIOUS we didnt even have to adopt a new lame excuse and CCP is failing for it again ! Anyways, everything will be back to business as usual in a month, dont worry guys, we got this. Later: If CCP would just buy us all pink ponies, then we would fight ! If CCP would just buy us all cookies, then we would fight ! If CCP would just...... Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 33	Posted - 2015.08.05 23:31:26 - [289] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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? Quote: 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. 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 Quote: 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. 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? Looking for an exact number Quote:** 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. 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. 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?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6489	Posted - 2015.08.05 23:53:42 - [290] - 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!

Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 33	Posted - 2015.08.06 00:31:25 - [291] - Quote What I said: your playstyle and opinions are 100% valid in this sandbox what you said in response: Lucas Kell wrote: The hypocrisy of this statement does not go unnoticed. I'm capable of respecting and understanding the opinions of people I don't necessarily agree with. Apparently you aren't. You're either a 13 year old or one hell of a troll. If you're unable to admit not everyone thinks the exact same way you do, I will treat you like the troll you are. o7 When you want to have a conversation like an adult, realizing we might disagree, convo me in game. until then, grow up a bit. kay?
Scalding Holland Arcadia Group 0	Posted - 2015.08.06 00:33:43 - [292] - Quote All sovereignty changes CCP have introduced since POS claimship have ruined this game. EVE has some realism under POS warfare. This nonsense with anomalies and beacons popping up for us to sit around hours to capture is killing the game.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 506	Posted - 2015.08.06 00:38:34 - [293] - Quote Billy Bojangle wrote: Quote: Because the bar for suicide ganking is so low, we have to scout and web or lose the hauler, even for just a shitfit destroyer. Literally the same arguments risk-averse carebears make about CODE. Quoting for mother kitten truth.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 508	Posted - 2015.08.06 00:47:29 - [294] - 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. They don't even need to drive them off. They just need to put elinks on their ratting ishtars and then actually look at their afk client once every 10 minutes to see if they need to warp somewhere in their ratting system to run a defensive elink for 20 mins. They never even have to use a gate. Pretty sure they could even update their afktar bots to handle it.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 386	Posted - 2015.08.06 02:03:25 - [295] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: Billy Bojangle wrote: DBRB spent months grinding structures in stealth bombers, but all of a sudden this is too tedious and of no strategic value? Spent months grinding structures back when they could escalate to fights. I have begun to see a pattern. Apparently the map the rest of us use that tells you exactly where all the nullsec alliances are, you know the ones you claim to want to pick fights with, well it appears that you guys out in nullsec dont know how to use said map. Therefore, im letting you know now that im running a, 'pvp for noobs' seminar and im inviting all of nullsec that doesnt know how to use the game map, just how to use that map to pick fights with your neighbors. And as a gesture of good will from your friends in highsec, the seminar is FREE ! In week one we cover: opening your map (i know it sounds all techy and stuff but trust me in just a week's time you'll be opening that map like a pro!) In week two we cover: how to find an enemy to fight in nullsec. In week three we wrap up with: how to get into your ship and get into that 'big' fight you seem so eager to find. Again, totally free! so tell all your nullsec buddies to stop on in for your free seminar, ooh its going to be exciting, just think of all the big fights you'll get into, has you salivating, am i right! Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1034	Posted - 2015.08.06 02:25:02 - [296] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: ooh its going to be exciting, just think of all the big fights you'll get into, has you salivating, am i right! I take it your definition of big fight is 40 dudes poking at each other in shitfit T1 hulls, as that's about all you get when you actually invade anyone who isn't The Imperium, unfortunately. I assure you, our sigs have tried, and the shows of resistance are sad at best, and outright pathetic at worst. "Something something muh killboard efficiency. Stop feeding them kills guys. Srs, dock up and they'll go away in a couple of days." And they're right, we will, because seriously, **** node lasering.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 825	Posted - 2015.08.06 05:31:14 - [297] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Stinks of ulterior and vested motives in here. God damned, my irony meter went supernova. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13979	Posted - 2015.08.06 05:52:17 - [298] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Stinks of ulterior and vested motives in here. God damned, my irony meter went supernova. I'm only still reading this thread for the projection and the tinfoil. It's honestly funny at this point. "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.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6744	Posted - 2015.08.06 06:19:49 - [299] - Quote Lol "big fights" TWO interceptors running away. Plus a griffin. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 22647	Posted - 2015.08.06 06:25:25 - [300] - Quote Well, 15 pages in now, and you are all probably starting to suffer from some form of deficiency. Don't fear, for I have what you crave. No, its not electrolytes, its better, its.... Narwhaledge! Take a break and let your brain drink deep of the Sea Unicorn! *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6499	Posted - 2015.08.06 06:44:52 - [301] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1203	Posted - 2015.08.06 08:04:57 - [302] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Adapt. Stinks of ulterior and vested motives in here. God damned, my irony meter went supernova. I'm only still reading this thread for the projection and the tinfoil. It's honestly funny at this point. Natural in EVE that everyone argues from the perspective of their own advantage. Thats what the forum minigame is all about! Nonetheless, the simple adage: "adapt", is always applicable. One doesnt have to like it and one can lobby for change, but thats the where the bottomline is drawn that distinguishes between entitled whining and HTFU/dealing with it. Its pretty funny that organisations of thousands are players with all their vast resources, huge expanses of space, and centuries of collective experience are whining that "Plz, CCP! A single disposable frigate is trolling and annoying us! Make it stop, abloo-bloo!" ------------
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13981	Posted - 2015.08.06 08:17:30 - [303] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Natural in EVE that everyone argues from the perspective of their own advantage. Idk about you, but I honestly do not think the entire playerbase is incapable of objectivity. A large amount, certainly, but not all by any means. But then, a thief will always be willing to believe that another man will steal, as it were. "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.
Salvos Rhoska 1203	Posted - 2015.08.06 08:27:03 - [304] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: But then, a thief will always be willing to believe that another man will steal, as it were. Opportunity makes a thief of even the best of us. Every man has their price. Furthermore those in EVE with the naive notion that other men wouldnt, will be in for a sound reality check. ------------
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13981	Posted - 2015.08.06 08:28:53 - [305] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Opportunity makes a thief of even the best of us. Every man has their price. Whoosh. "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.
Salvos Rhoska 1203	Posted - 2015.08.06 08:45:43 - [306] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Opportunity makes a thief of even the best of us. Every man has their price. Whoosh. The legitimized conduct of CODE and its valiant moral defenders of the rights of innocent defenceless asteroids in HS not withstanding, ofc. Rebound. Swoosh. ------------
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13981	Posted - 2015.08.06 08:48:10 - [307] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: The legitimized morality of CODE and its valiant moral defenders of the rights of innocent defenceless asteroids in HS not withstanding, ofc. Now I remember you. You're the fake lawyer, right? I had forgotten, for a moment I wasn't sure if you were actually this lacking in self awareness, or if I was just being trolled. I am now no longer unsure. "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.
Salvos Rhoska 1203	Posted - 2015.08.06 08:49:08 - [308] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Now I remember you. You're the fake lawyer, right? I had forgotten, for a moment I wasn't sure if you were actually this lacking in self awareness, or if I was just being trolled. I am now no longer unsure. Boring ad hominem. Seems your scars still run deep. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6499	Posted - 2015.08.06 10:19:51 - [309] - 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!
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 82	Posted - 2015.08.06 10:48:19 - [310] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? 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.

Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 32	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:01:40 - [311] - Quote 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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 82	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:11:08 - [312] - Quote Grouchy Smurf wrote: So, why don't you capture them? The idea of FozzieSov is to allow small alliances to fight and control areas of space from larger entities. Something that couldn't be done with Dominion mechanics. All those structures are open to capture, yet no small alliance has claimed them. And it makes no difference whatsoever to Imperium since the few members that live there still do their thing. We dont capture them when you deploy the whole alliance to a system. I think in the past we have captured systems. The difference is you did not threw everything at us that time. We dont give you the good fight which translate to CFC as blobbing the hell of someone. We fight on our terms, not yours. Continue to blob us please. Isnt that time of the month yet?
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 82	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:12:23 - [313] - Quote 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. hypocracy and then complain why they are not having fun
Damien Power The Scope Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:15:59 - [314] - Quote I hate the Fossisov stuff.. I left nullsec because 1) the vulnerable times. Nothing really happens until the timer that was set begins but like mentioned before you get mostly trolls just being annoying and not really creating content. Hardly anyone is active except a couple guys who are ratting/mining just to increase the timer. And when I say active I'm talking about people who actually undock! Not have 30 to 80 online sitting in station because they logged in and went to work just to appear online and active. You harldy have any big opps or even small opps in this case. Yea I can fly around hoping to find someone trolling your area But that's boring! I trained all my accounts to fly cap ships and now they don't even get used now! Mostly because you see a system being entosed I guess you can say that Lol you fly to check the system And like mentioned before they run away! It's hard to get people to want to roam in small fleets because the chances are high that all you will find is a ceptor or a tech1 destroyer and occasionally a small camp with a bubble maybe 2 to 3 guys at most. But those guys are only looking for single pilots to gank who aren't immune to bubbles. All in all its boring .
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6499	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:22:02 - [315] - 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!
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 82	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:24:24 - [316] - Quote Damien Power wrote: I hate the Fossisov stuff.. I left nullsec because 1) the vulnerable times. Nothing really happens until the timer that was set begins but like mentioned before you get mostly trolls just being annoying and not really creating content. Hardly anyone is active except a couple guys who are ratting/mining just to increase the timer. And when I say active I'm talking about people who actually undock! Not have 30 to 80 online sitting in station because they logged in and went to work just to appear online and active. You harldy have any big opps or even small opps in this case. Yea I can fly around hoping to find someone trolling your area But that's boring! I trained all my accounts to fly cap ships and now they don't even get used now! Mostly because you see a system being entosed I guess you can say that Lol you fly to check the system And like mentioned before they run away! It's hard to get people to want to roam in small fleets because the chances are high that all you will find is a ceptor or a tech1 destroyer and occasionally a small camp with a bubble maybe 2 to 3 guys at most. But those guys are only looking for single pilots to gank who aren't immune to bubbles. All in all its boring . This is total bs. I dont want to be rude but there is no other way to say it. People are ratting and mining to make isk and not to increase the timers. You dont need that much effort to keep or increase the timers. If you really want to do that you can form a 100 man fleet and do it in two days to almost maxed out from almost zero. People are doing it for isk. To maintain an index level, you actually need very little activity. There are about 10 CFC renters in pure blind and they have max 5 people at a time in a system. They have kept the index up. If those renters can do it with 5 people surelly anyone can. Unless you are doing it wrong or the system is been constantly reinforced. Which has nothing to do with index level but more the inability to protect a system.
bumblesquat Paragon Trust The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:36:10 - [317] - Quote The entosis mechanic has just been blue ball after blue ball. Not yet had a single fight as a result of someone using an Entosis link. Pvp characters in fleet whilst i go off ratting with another alt. Hasn't slowed the isk making. Has just meant I've had to log on another character and fly him to a system to afk at a gate. And yes, lots more World of Warships. If you want more high-sec players to come out to null, then i think you need to make null a greater place to live than high-sec. If your worried about vast groups owning too much space, then may some sort of limits on the amount of space a set number of accounts( not characters for obvious reasons) can hold - that being said, could mean more unused space so JB's can remain in place. I don't think making Sov holders irritated by trolls is the way to create movement. Albeit, it has been something to log on for, e.g. when Moa goes on a little roam, it gives the evil Goonies something to log on and play with. Ironically, i think Moa would do more damage to the CFC if they just stopped providing content. I'd like to see a new power to grow to create another great war. Maybe creating an incentive to form new coalitions without benefiting the CFC.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 83	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:36:27 - [318] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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? Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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.
Salvos Rhoska 1203	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:39:09 - [319] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Just FYI, we have adapted. And oh yeah, I remember you. Didn't you ragequit or something? 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. No, I didnt ragequit. Returned to studies warm with victory for a bit. Thought you did, though. ------------
Avanda Redblade SL33P3R C3LL 0	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:48:46 - [320] - Quote Scalding Holland wrote: All sovereignty changes CCP have introduced since POS claimship have ruined this game. EVE has some realism under POS warfare. This nonsense with anomalies and beacons popping up for us to sit around hours to capture is killing the game. Notwithstanding the possibility of this being a troll, there must be at least a tiny element of truth in this as so many ex-nullies have migrated to wormhole life where POS establishment and destruction defines the "sovereignty" of a wormhole system in a true sandbox style. Got to love the purity.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 84	Posted - 2015.08.06 11:53:00 - [321] - Quote Avanda Redblade wrote: Scalding Holland wrote: All sovereignty changes CCP have introduced since POS claimship have ruined this game. EVE has some realism under POS warfare. This nonsense with anomalies and beacons popping up for us to sit around hours to capture is killing the game. Notwithstanding the possibility of this being a troll, there must be at least a tiny element of truth in this as so many ex-nullies have migrated to wormhole life where POS establishment and destruction defines the "sovereignty" of a wormhole system in a true sandbox style. Got to love the purity. People moved to wormhole cos its easy isk. Also a lot of isk and they do provide a lot of pvp too. So you get best of both. In null you have to abide by all the blue donuts. I think soon you may have the same with whs. There are a lot of wh entities that are setting each other to blue now.
Salvos Rhoska 1203	Posted - 2015.08.06 12:01:54 - [322] - Quote WHs are imo one of CCPs crowning and finest achievements. Really outstanding work and design. Perhaps because they didnt have to compromise with existing power blocs of interest. But aside from that speculation, its excellent lateral thinking in action that Id like to see more of. I think migration to them is more an issue of the whole hole (pun intended) concept being so functional, than it is of Sov problems. Perhaps thats a glass half full attitude, but I thinknits warranted. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6499	Posted - 2015.08.06 12:16:41 - [323] - 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 - [324] - 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!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1034	Posted - 2015.08.06 12:25:06 - [325] - Quote 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.
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 32	Posted - 2015.08.06 12:32:55 - [326] - Quote 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.
Damien Power The Scope Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.06 12:34:09 - [327] - Quote Actually I love pvp! It's the chicken shi@ people who come to a system that is on the outer side of the area your alliance controls and runs soon as they see you come to system! And as far as ratting in a system! Maybe you should consider the fact that most of us players who have been playing since 2008 and earlier don't need isk because we have plenty. It's the alliance leaders who require the couple who are willing to run sites To increase the defence! Most older players trained into cap ships ect for large scale fights and those fights are being reduced with these changes. So yes it is boring! Especially when those timers are ending by the time you get home from Real life stuff. Yes I could change alliances to find someone who's timers are in my Tz but even then its rare to have a good cap/super cap fight against your enemies. Yea I can move a super and say! I'm going to try and solo these guys in a super because I want to use it but that's just plain stupid! Goons and mordus making comments but yet you guys complain about each other about the same things! Goons bringing big fleets to camp mordus in station and goons saying mordus runs from them most of the time (so they claim) Yea that cat and mouse game sounds sooooo exciting. ( hey Bob!) Nobody is in this system right now lets try to put it in reinforce before they show up! OK let's hurry it will be funny if we can! Wonder how many times someone said this? Obviously not the name (Bob) just an example.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 85	Posted - 2015.08.06 12:49:11 - [328] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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 Lucas Kell wrote: Lol? Like how you guys have complained for years about sov mechanics and how unfair it is on you? Hypocrite. 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...
Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 384	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:02:51 - [329] - 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. While last year there was a summer decline, it was no where near has steep as this year. What ever can be said for fozzie sov, it has proven itself to not be eve Jesus. There has been no significant numbers of incoming folk, at least enough to outweigh the bitter vets it drove off, nor does it appear to have driven large numbers of players from empire to null. In fact, it appears that opinion can be broken down as follows: (1) the majority of eve folk, i.e. non-null dwellers, who view it as "meh" (2) null dwellers, who view it as "could be better." Some of us wanted actual alternate gameplay in the forms of WiS, ambulatory/exploration combat similar to Mass Effect, along with full Dust integration to actually make living the dream a little less two dimensional. But angry mobs of internet cavemen were like "GRRRRRRRRR SPACESHIPS! ME WANT DO SAME STUFF AS BEEN DOING FOREVER" As it turns out, doing more of the same crap isn't actually all that compelling. So now you guys get to enjoy your falling subs from a stale game. It doesn't matter if Fozzie replaces pinata with whack-a-mole. 10 year tally wackers are not going to suddenly feel as if their world has been revolutionized. If this is the entire scope of the current CCP staff, maybe its time to get some new staff.
Salvos Rhoska 1206	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:06:41 - [330] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Before or after you got banned? "Are you suggesting" is basically an attempt to force words down someones throat that they have never said, and fail. For example: "Are you suggesting that I suggested that you suggested, that he suggested etc". Leads nowhere and is an argumentative flaw. I didnt suggest anything. If I suggest something, I will say "I suggest xxx". 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. 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. 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. I fight for what I want, everyday. But not by whining or claiming my opinion trumps others, but by concrete action towards and addressed to those who can affect change. Its the difference between you whining to other customers at a shop and getting mad at them for not agreeing with you, rather than whining to the staff who can sctually do something about it or give a ** about ypur personal opinion. You are doing the former. I "suggest" you do the latter. Put your money where your mouth is. Formulate an argument and direct it here to CCP. Put what you got down in text, address it to CCP here, and lets discuss it. Im all for that. And as for my short forum ban, thats between me and CCP and none of your beeswax. I dutifully HTFP and did my time. Thats all there is to it. ------------**

Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5545	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:12:18 - [331] - Quote For years, every time CCP would suggest something that would combat something like supercap proliferation, long-range power projection, helldropping, consolidation of increasing amounts of power and wealth in the hands of mega-coalitions, the answer of large nullsec alliances - Goonswarm and TEST in particular were fond of this - was always "we have more members. We'll use them to work around this." They'd use that threat to shoot down anything CCP did. CCP finally came up with two systems - jump fatigue and FozzieSov - that you can't game simply by throwing more people at them. Of course the large alliances are upset. 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.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12064	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:23:15 - [332] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: For years, every time CCP would suggest something that would combat something like supercap proliferation, long-range power projection, helldropping, consolidation of increasing amounts of power and wealth in the hands of mega-coalitions, the answer of large nullsec alliances - Goonswarm and TEST in particular were fond of this - was always "we have more members. We'll use them to work around this." They'd use that threat to shoot down anything CCP did. CCP finally came up with two systems - jump fatigue and FozzieSov - that you can't game simply by throwing more people at them. Of course the large alliances are upset. This is an example of prejudice (in this case against Goons, don't know how TEST figured in there lol) clouds judgement. GOONS AREN'T LOSING ANYTHING. Their vast empire isn't crumbling from the onslaught of 'new group' hordes. Their numbers ARE dictating the reality (go ask Mordus lol). Hell, the ONLY things that affect jump fatigue and fozzie sov are numbers (more characters means you can 'pony express' ships across space, and fozzie sov no likey 14,000 man coaltions). It will always remain amusing to see people with such blatant bias get things so twisted that they don't understand that they are celebrating themselves getting screwed. Goons now have an impenetrable and impregnable fortress in the north with max strength bonuses from all that damn Ishtar Ratting and even mid sized alliances like my own are such a pain in the backside to move that no one seriously tries (that attack we fended off last night from INIT and Goons just wasn't a serious push, they want fights, not more space). The 'upset' has nothing to do with losing anything, it has everything to do with the fact that this new system isn't very much fun to play even if it is EASIER to hold on to vast amounts of space with it. Do you not see all the renewed rental empires popping up?
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1035	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:24:48 - [333] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: For years, every time CCP would suggest something that would combat something like supercap proliferation, long-range power projection, helldropping, consolidation of increasing amounts of power and wealth in the hands of mega-coalitions, the answer of large nullsec alliances - Goonswarm and TEST in particular were fond of this - was always "we have more members. We'll use them to work around this." They'd use that threat to shoot down anything CCP did. CCP finally came up with two systems - jump fatigue and FozzieSov - that you can't game simply by throwing more people at them. Of course the large alliances are upset. Yes, you can. Everything can be beaten with more numbers, including the two things you mentioned. Fozziesov is easy to counter with more people, and we already have done so. Have a look at the timer board and count how many Imperium systems are in danger of being lost. Go ahead, I'll wait. Jump fatigue is a bit trickier, but can still be overcome with more numbers; alts are key. As a more impractical approach, if every player with a super were to buy two more characters and supers, then place those in certain strategic systems, we'd have completely destroyed the goal of jump fatigue. More numbers always wins. Always.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5546	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:29:01 - [334] - Quote 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. 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.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1036	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:32:45 - [335] - 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. Well, it would certainly free up some anoms in Deklein. Perhaps then, someone might actually have a chance at taking our sov. Go ahead and shoot this idea to CCP and let me know what you hear back.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5546	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:35:39 - [336] - Quote Hey, if your problem is that you have a system which assholes are always trying to game, and no matter how much you change the system, the assholes still find a way to game it, maybe the system isn't the root cause of the issue. Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6501	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:37:52 - [337] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1206	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:39:56 - [338] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: [q The 'upset' has nothing to do with losing anything, it has everything to do with the fact that this new system isn't very much fun to play even if it is EASIER to hold on to vast amounts of space with it. Could you elaborate a bit on this, please? Especially the italized part. ------------
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2399	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:40:08 - [339] - Quote The elephant in the room is that hisec is too large, too profitable and too comfortably at odds with the big-battle 'This is EvE' and BR-5 videos that actually bring people into EvE in the first place. Until CCP stops trying to be all things to all people (and playstyles), and greatly reduces the size, ISK and content of hisec -- to an empty 'ready room' for the real game in losec/null, EvE will continue to stagnate and not grow. There wont be a gold rush or land-grab in nullsec, if 72% of the population are fat and lazily gorging themselves on hisec incursion sweetmeats. We can no longer look at images like this and scratch our heads in willful ignorance, on why much of EvE losec & null is empty and content-dry, despite any number of tweaking around SOV mechanics themselves. Brave Newbies (the concept) proved that fast-tracking large numbers of new players out of hisec into losec/null ASAP creates content for many. It's time for CCP to double-down on that concept, with hisec ISK/content/size nerfs to create & feed more groups like Brave Newbies, Chode', etc. We've tried the 'come get some SOV' carrot. Its now time for some serious hisec sticks. F Would you like to know more?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6501	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:48:00 - [340] - 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!

Salvos Rhoska 1206	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:49:29 - [341] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: We've tried the 'come get some SOV' carrot. Its now time for some serious hisec sticks Could you please paraphrase/list your suggestions here for more direct perusal and discussion? ------------
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12065	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:51:04 - [342] - Quote 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. Which is the point CCP does not understand. You cannot defeat human nature, even in a video game. Yet CCP keeps trying to (not just with fozzie sov), which is why very few of the systems they put into the game work as intended (loot spew was supposed to do one thing and ended up doing another, Incursions were supposed to be 'PUG' affairs so CCP didn't even consider that people would form large groups like TVP and the others, CCP once nerfed anoms because "yea, that will create conflict", Dominion will be the small alliances dream!!! etc etc etc). People are the ONLY issue, and trying to herd us into 'small alliances are wonderful, big ones suck' territory was something that was doomed to fail (again) from the get-go. Your dislike of certain groups doesn't change these facts.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12065	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:52:30 - [343] - 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. The way to fix the Sov problem is get rid of Sov (which get's rid of the stupid idea that you can 'funnel' people into certain types of gameplay with game mechanics).
Sexy Cakes Have A Seat 955	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:53:47 - [344] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: For the love of God just drop all nullsec mechanics and let the players sort it out. This. Not today spaghetti.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 826	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:56:33 - [345] - Quote Icycle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Being quick enough to catch other ships and tackle them, also makes them quick enough to run away. I propose we call them FLEE-TORS as it suits what you are doing now with the hull. All you are doing is the equivalent of going up to someones door and ringing the bell, and running away when you hear them get up to answer the door. To you it's hilarious, and since you are quick you can do that to everybody in the neighborhood, to the people having to constantly get up and reset the door bell it's annoying. If you were ringing the bell for a bit if fisticuffs you would stay, but you aren't and it's annoying. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5547	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:56:42 - [346] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: The elephant in the room is that hisec is too large, too profitable and too comfortably at odds with the big-battle 'This is EvE' and BR-5 videos that actually bring people into EvE in the first place. Until CCP stops trying to be all things to all people (and playstyles), and greatly reduces the size, ISK and content of hisec -- to an empty 'ready room' for the real game in losec/null, EvE will continue to stagnate and not grow. There wont be a gold rush or land-grab in nullsec, if 72% of the population are fat and lazily gorging themselves on hisec incursion sweetmeats. We can no longer look at images like this and scratch our heads in willful ignorance, on why much of EvE losec & null is empty and content-dry, despite any number of tweaking around SOV mechanics themselves. Brave Newbies (the concept) proved that fast-tracking large numbers of new players out of hisec into losec/null ASAP creates content for many. It's time for CCP to double-down on that concept, with hisec ISK/content/size nerfs to create & feed more groups like Brave Newbies, Chode', etc. We've tried the 'come get some SOV' carrot. Its now time for some serious hisec sticks. F Your obsession with null-sec PvP is noted, but you couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried. Firstly, let's snap back to reality and set one thing straight here - CCP is never going to turn hi-sec into an "empty ready room." That is fundamentally 100% not going to occur. You should just probably stop trying to pimp your blog if it's going to continue either demanding that this happen or believing that it will, because it's so detached from reality as to drift into realms of fantasy usually reserved for Steven Universe fanfiction. People are brought to the game for many reasons and engage in a hell of a lot of things within it, and not all or even most of these things are to do with nullsec PvP. Narrowly focusing on nullsec space and one playstyle to the exclusion of others absolutely will kill the game - players who want to remain in hi-sec or low-sec (which your blog suggests you hold nearly equal disdain for) won't go to nullsec to be part of your meatgrinder just because you take their content away. They'll leave the game, and if 71% of the subscribers get fed up and quit, that's going to bankrupt CCP and there'll be no hi-sec, no low-sec, no nullsec, no W-space and no EVE Online. (Given that I just mentioned W-space, the most hilarious thing about your blog is you talk about nerfing the profitability of wormholes as well, which sort of shows your true intentions better than anything else) On a more fundamental level, any attempt to "strip content" from a region of space in an attempt to force players to move to a different one isn't only financial suicide on the part of CCP, it also runs counter to the ethos of EVE Online. You don't seem to understand that this is a sandbox. It is meant to cater to any playstyle. What you're asking for is that it cater to your playstyle exclusively to the exclusion of all others, which is no better than miners asking for invulnerability from ganking in hi-sec. 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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 86	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:58:37 - [347] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Brave Newbies (the concept) proved that fast-tracking large numbers of new players out of hisec into losec/null ASAP creates content for many. It's time for CCP to double-down on that concept, with hisec ISK/content/size nerfs to create & feed more groups like Brave Newbies, Chode', etc. It is important to look after the new players in high sec. Everyone that starts starts in high sec. EVE is a lot to take. I dont think Brave newbies created much to tell you the truth. It full of present players alts and not so much newbies as it believed to be. I personally think unless you make high sec totally and i meant totally s***, it wont move people to null. BUt i think it will also cause a lot of people so unsunscribe alts and a lot of actual new players to leave. People will always find a way around it, much like CFC does. I do still think that Fozzy sov has given a lot more to the smaller entities that any other expansion in eve and I applaud them for it. It really creates a lot of content for us. Even super capital and titan content, the only difference is that we are been dropped in this scenario
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6501	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:59:11 - [348] - 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!
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12067	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:01:22 - [349] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: [q The 'upset' has nothing to do with losing anything, it has everything to do with the fact that this new system isn't very much fun to play even if it is EASIER to hold on to vast amounts of space with it. Could you elaborate a bit on this, please? Especially the italized part. Isn't it obvious? Can you not see a map? "Small groups" might nibble an edge or 2 here or there (and they are being allowed to but less small groups who just want to let them in long enough to farm them for kills), but how much space has the largets group in the game (imperium) lost? Not an inch,that's how much. It's because the GOALS of aegis sov (which are the same as the original goals of Dominion, "open up space to small groups") were flawed from the very beginning. CCP needs to stop worrying about 'small groups' and let the chips fall where they may. It's pure dumb to think that human beings won't group up in ever larger groups in any game like this. Human beings are those things that in real life went from nomadic tribes to densely populated mostly urban Nuclear Armed Super Powers in a blink of an eye relative to how long Earth has been able to sustain life. Dinousaurs couldn't do that in 165 million years , we did it in less than 1 lol. Dinos suck people rule lol.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2399	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:04:17 - [350] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: ... People are brought to the game for many reasons and engage in a hell of a lot of things within it, and not all or even most of these things are to do with nullsec PvP. .. I am yet to see large swaths of new players join the game because they saw a dank hisec mining, Level 3-4 or incursion video. Wilful Ignorance Serves No-one p.s. Rekt. F Would you like to know more?

Salvos Rhoska 1206	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:05:05 - [351] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: All you are doing is the equivalent of going up to someones door and ringing the bell, and running away when you hear them get up to answer the door. To you it's hilarious, and since you are quick you can do that to everybody in the neighborhood, to the people having to constantly get up and reset the door bell it's annoying. If you were ringing the bell for a bit if fisticuffs you would stay, but you aren't and it's annoying. So sorry your empire of thousands of alts is annoyed by single disposable frigates. This must be terrible for you. I know I cant feel your deep pain, but Im there for you if you need me. ------------
Salvos Rhoska 1211	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:16:19 - [352] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Whats the problem really? Does your job description not allow you to represent directly to the source instead of engaging other posters opinions? Quite seriously, if you have good suggestions and good experiential anecdotes to provide, type them up and post them here as addressed to CCP. I for one would respect that enormously, read it with great interest, and ofc tear it apart as best I can of which you would expect no less of me. Take a stand, man. I heartily encourage this before this thread devolves any further and you lose your opportunity to communicate your suggestions. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6501	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:17:45 - [353] - 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!
Captain Awkward Republic University Minmatar Republic 37	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:21:18 - [354] - 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. . Its called INTERCEPTOR and not EVADER. It got bubble immunity to get more pvp not less pvp by using its imunity to troll and evade capturing. Again and again. No one has a actual problem with entosis if you are actually willing to fight for the control auf the grid. A trollceptor is only a trollceptor when its used for trolling. Is that so hard to understand? Giving frigs the option the use entosis is a mistake I think. The old system required a lot of dps and a big commitment. The new system requires only a single frig with a link. The bar was lowered to mutch. Even very small entitys can be expected to bring more than a single frig to threaten sov.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6501	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:24:28 - [355] - 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!
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5548	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:29:24 - [356] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: I am yet to see large swaths of new players join the game because they saw a dank hisec mining, Level 3-4 or incursion video. Wilful Ignorance Serves No-one p.s. Rekt. F Just dropping links to one battle and then saying "rekt" doesn't actually refute any of the points I made - and it's funny that your mind immediately jumped to mining, level 3-4 missions or incursions, when what I was actually thinking about was things like this (lowsec factional warfare), this (lowsec R&K carrier hilarity), this (lowsec R&K carrier hilarity), this (W-space R&K carrier hilarity) or this (masterfully-executed corporate heist against an Amarrian roleplay corporation - by another roleplayer, incidentally - that basically set the template for all future corporate betrayals). I mean, this all seems like real fun stuff happened in all the areas you want to "strip of content." But no, of course, you're right. All good content happens in nullsec, and people only come to EVE for the nullsec meatgrinder. P.S. It's funny that you mentioned Brave Newbies as, quote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Brave Newbies (the concept) proved that fast-tracking large numbers of new players out of hisec into losec/null ASAP creates content for many. I'd say it's actually a better example of a highly successfu hi-sec/low-sec newbie-focused alliance that moved into nullsec and got itself destroyed by nullsec politics. As they say - rekt. 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13989	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:31:59 - [357] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: I'd say it's actually a better example of a highly successfu hi-sec/low-sec newbie-focused alliance that moved into nullsec and got itself destroyed by nullsec politics. I would say that reflected far more on their exceedingly toxic and inept leadership than on the ephemeral concept of "null politics", personally. "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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 86	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:41:57 - [358] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Icycle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Being quick enough to catch other ships and tackle them, also makes them quick enough to run away. I propose we call them FLEE-TORS as it suits what you are doing now with the hull. All you are doing is the equivalent of going up to someones door and ringing the bell, and running away when you hear them get up to answer the door. To you it's hilarious, and since you are quick you can do that to everybody in the neighborhood, to the people having to constantly get up and reset the door bell it's annoying. If you were ringing the bell for a bit if fisticuffs you would stay, but you aren't and it's annoying. You can rename then or redifine them all you want. Just remember they are pvp ship. That is all in your head. They exists to catch all the pvpers and pve that whine in here . You keep blobbing and people will run away. Thats your fault you dont know how to bait!
Salvos Rhoska 1211	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:43:18 - [359] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: .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. I dont have a problem with CCP. You do. I dont have a problem with Fozziesov. You do. But instead of addressing CCP, you attack posters with opinions different than your own. As I said, you are ranting at other customers, rather than delivering concrete feedback to the source. Its like you are in a shop, shouting at the other customers that they are wrong... Makes no sense. TLDR: Apparently ypur organisational function here and ingame does not allow you to present policy and a direct statement to CCP. You are here specifically and only for the function to ambiguate and engage posters and shout them down, not the source, which you resolutely refuse to address then and now for your concerns. Protip: Its not us you need to convince, its CCP. Shouting at people that your view is right and theirs is not, is a crapout. Let CCP and us here your suggestions, rather than you just shouting at people you dont agree with. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6501	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:52:04 - [360] - 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!

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6746	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:53:50 - [361] - Quote Captain Awkward wrote: Its called INTERCEPTOR and not EVADER. It got bubble immunity to get more pvp not less pvp by using its imunity to troll and evade capturing. The trollceptor is emergent, you can say that for sure edit: well maybe they intended for people to poke sov with these interdiction nullified ships that can also just mwd away at mad speed to nearly trivialize the no-warp entosis effect but you know that's a bit much ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Salvos Rhoska 1211	Posted - 2015.08.06 14:58:24 - [362] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Further derailing of this thread to discuss whether or not you feel my method of communicating with the CSM is correct will be reported. Report threats in return for an amicable and encouraging suggestion to type up your expert and informed views and address them here to CCP and for public scrutiny, as opposed to attacking, threatening and shouting down people with different opinions. Ok. I dont have suggestions. I am not intimately involved or informed on the problem as you are. If I was, I would post them here to CCP and for public review. But I do know shouting people down and attacking their opinions without offering something better is a losing path. Put your cards on the table. Its easy to be a critic when you have no chips in the game. Specific wording of OP is: "What I'm looking for is your experienced with fozziesov so far --ánot your opinions or feelings-á- but actual stories about what you've done with fozziesov to date. Good experiences, bad experiences, funny anecdotes.... please share them all.-á" How about you do that rather than shouting at other players that theirs are wrong. Just a suggestion, you know. ------------
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2399	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:04:37 - [363] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: Just dropping links to one battle and then saying "rekt" doesn't actually refute any of the points I made.. Yeah...it kinda did. p.s. This is the map (and relative ISK/content factors) EvE needs. Not neccessarily wants, like with push-back on jump ranges and jump fatigue -- but what EvE needs, if it is ever to grow past its wall of 10+ years of total-player-count stagnation (and decline?). It's important to read all the proposed details, including a better ship-replacement insurance scheme (ala Elite:Dangerous), as balm to newbie risk-aversion psychosis, as we make this transition to EvE 2.0... F Would you like to know more?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6501	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:09:50 - [364] - 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!
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 86	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:12:54 - [365] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: Just dropping links to one battle and then saying "rekt" doesn't actually refute any of the points I made.. Yeah...it kinda did. p.s. This is the map (and relative ISK/content factors) EvE needs. Not neccessarily wants, like with push-back on jump ranges and jump fatigue -- but what EvE needs, if it is ever to grow past its wall of 10+ years of total-player-count stagnation (and decline?). It's important to read all the proposed details, including a better ship-replacement insurance scheme (ala Elite:Dangerous), as balm to newbie risk-aversion psychosis, as we make this transition to EvE 2.0... F They kinda did this before but not exactly. What they did was the offered even higher profits that we have now. Nullsec was really full of renters and such. .All of a sudden high sec was empty and you had all the high sec entities complaining the could not war dec or kill anything in high sec. I remember this perfectly. Then CCP nerfed everything down to half or more. People complained nad went back to high sec or unsubbed alts so it does not solves it.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5550	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:25:48 - [366] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Yeah...it kinda did. How? You haven't addressed the fact that CCP straight out isn't going to implement the changes you propose, and that even someone as naively delusional as yourself must be aware of that fact. This: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: p.s. This is the map (and relative ISK/content factors) EvE needs. Is not going to happen. They're not going to strip vast amounts of content from one area of space to bolster another that is demonstrably less popular by average player count. They're not going to destroy hi-sec, they're not going to destroy low-sec and they're most certainly not going to destroy wormhole space. Null-sec is not the be-all and end-all of EVE Online. I cannot believe that I - a genuine, certified autist - am having to kindly remind someone else that human beings other than themselves exist. You haven't even remotely demonstrated that current nullsec gameplay is integral to EVE's survivability. In fact, if anything, you're demonstrating why the mindset that obsession with nullsec creates is exceptionally dangerous. Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Not neccessarily wants, like with push-back on jump ranges and jump fatigue -- but what EvE needs, if it is ever to grow past its wall of 10+ years of total-player-count stagnation (and decline?). It was at this point that I realised Feyd doesn't understand how numbers work. There's a definite downtrend in recent months, but calling the previous ten years of total playercount "stagnant" demonstrates that you are either a remarkably blatant troll or extremely bad at maths. It also completely contradicts your previous point about how battles like B-R5RB cause massive player influxes. Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: It's important to read all the proposed details, including a better ship-replacement insurance scheme (ala Elite:Dangerous), as balm to newbie risk-aversion psychosis, as we make this transition to EvE 2.0... F It was at this point that I realised that I barely even need to refute points that Feyd made because he was clearly insane, proposing a scheme that displayed a complete lack of understanding regarding the way in which EVE Online's economy works. 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.
Salvos Rhoska 1212	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:30:08 - [367] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: How about you do that rather than shouting at other players that theirs are wrong. Irony right here. Not as complete an irony as someone who threatens reporting if you dont agree with their shouting down other clients. Its not your message I disagree with. I disagree with your method of shouting other clients down, and attacking their views and experiences without laying your own out. I do not doubt you have anecdotes, experience and informed views on this system, as requested by OP. I just dont see them presented anywhere. All I see is attacking other posters for theirs, and now, threatening. ------------
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12069	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:35:28 - [368] - Quote It was here that I realized that i was aguring on the same side as Lucas Kell. Anyone have a spare samurai sword I could borrow for 5 minutes??? j/jk
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2399	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:39:17 - [369] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: ... It was at this point that I realised that I barely even need to refute points that Feyd made... It was at this point my quivering finger invoked my three-specious-shiptoasts-and-your-out clause. F Would you like to know more?
Salvos Rhoska 1212	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:42:35 - [370] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: It was here that I realized that i was aguring on the same side as Lucas Kell. Anyone have a spare samurai sword I could borrow for 5 minutes??? j/jk Youve done good. I for one found your position inform/ed/ative, sincere and critical in ways that matter. Can we have some more, please? Let it all hang out. ------------

Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12069	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:44:04 - [371] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: It was here that I realized that i was aguring on the same side as Lucas Kell. Anyone have a spare samurai sword I could borrow for 5 minutes??? j/jk Youve done good. I for one found your position inform/ed/ative, sincere and critical in ways that matter. Can we have some more, please? Let it all hang out. Can you have some more? yes you can. Lucas is right and you are wrong. I hope that was enough
Salvos Rhoska 1212	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:48:05 - [372] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: It was here that I realized that i was aguring on the same side as Lucas Kell. Anyone have a spare samurai sword I could borrow for 5 minutes??? j/jk Youve done good. I for one found your position inform/ed/ative, sincere and critical in ways that matter. Can we have some more, please? Let it all hang out. Can you have some more? yes you can. Lucas is right and you are wrong. I hope that was enough Alrighty then Still want that samurai sword? j/jk ------------
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5550	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:48:47 - [373] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: It was at this point my quivering finger invoked my three-specious-shiptoasts-and-your-out clause. F "I have no actual counterarguments to offer so I'm just going to block you." How's the weather in Siberia, since you seem to be posting from a salt mine? 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.
Kit Bradovich Dicistro Viridae 0	Posted - 2015.08.06 15:59:53 - [374] - Quote This thread is interesting Lol I believe the new game mechanics (fozzie) Lol has created some content and pvp for smaller alliances/corps to take systems on the outskirts of sov holders, but has created the turtle affect in a way. Meaning that alliances have gotten use to the large scale blob fights to defend a system., mostly because it would take a large fleet to take a system from these alliances. I'm seing in the thread and multiple threads that a single ship can disrupt and or take a system witch sounds unreasonable. I say from what I'm reading people just don't feel like flying across a region just to attempt to catch a single ship, so now they sit in a home system and wait to see if someone decides to come their way to take a station system. (Turtling) because obviously you don't care to much about the systems that force you to chase or try and catch a enemy. If it's not a staged fight its kinda boring to some. I'm talking about the fights where both parties know a rough estimate of what each other has and then the fight happens someone comes out the so called winner then they repeat again Lol. (Turtling) until the next staged fight. Yes some are lazy and only like to hit f1 and call it a day but then again like mentioned earlier. A ceptor can fly around ringing the doorbell and fleeing when someone answers. Yes the ceptor is a pvp ship for tackling but mostly in fleets. If your a solo guy I'm throwing this % out there and saying I assume probably 80% of solo ceptors are fit for fast travel and escape (not) pvp fit. So yes its a pvp ship but its mostly used now for travel purposes and with a entosis it can create an annoyance if the purpose of the pilot is just to be funny and have no intention to claim or hold a system. Anyhow I enjoyed reading this and look forward to reading more lol
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 389	Posted - 2015.08.06 16:19:45 - [375] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: ooh its going to be exciting, just think of all the big fights you'll get into, has you salivating, am i right! I take it your definition of big fight is 40 dudes poking at each other in shitfit T1 hulls, as that's about all you get when you actually invade anyone who isn't The Imperium, unfortunately. I assure you, our sigs have tried, and the shows of resistance are sad at best, and outright pathetic at worst. "Something something muh killboard efficiency. Stop feeding them kills guys. Srs, dock up and they'll go away in a couple of days." And they're right, we will, because seriously, **** node lasering. then take their sov push them out then move onto the next fight. someone is going to care about their holdings, yet again another lame pretend excuse for not undocking your big guns and getting into a real fight. Your problem is the same one most of sov holders have, you care more about your bank account than fighting, you want stare at all your titans all day instead of using them, there is nothing between you and a big fight except that you dont really want one. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Snowmann Arrow Industries 11	Posted - 2015.08.06 16:34:16 - [376] - Quote Kit Bradovich wrote: This thread is interesting Lol I believe the new game mechanics (fozzie) Lol has created some content and pvp for smaller alliances/corps to take systems on the outskirts of sov holders, but has created the turtle affect in a way. Meaning that alliances have gotten use to the large scale blob fights to defend a system., mostly because it would take a large fleet to take a system from these alliances. I'm seing in the thread and multiple threads that a single ship can disrupt and or take a system witch sounds unreasonable. I say from what I'm reading people just don't feel like flying across a region just to attempt to catch a single ship, so now they sit in a home system and wait to see if someone decides to come their way to take a station system. (Turtling) because obviously you don't care to much about the systems that force you to chase or try and catch a enemy. If it's not a staged fight its kinda boring to some. I'm talking about the fights where both parties know a rough estimate of what each other has and then the fight happens someone comes out the so called winner then they repeat again Lol. (Turtling) until the next staged fight. Yes some are lazy and only like to hit f1 and call it a day but then again like mentioned earlier. A ceptor can fly around ringing the doorbell and fleeing when someone answers. Yes the ceptor is a pvp ship for tackling but mostly in fleets. If your a solo guy I'm throwing this % out there and saying I assume probably 80% of solo ceptors are fit for fast travel and escape (not) pvp fit. So yes its a pvp ship but its mostly used now for travel purposes and with a entosis it can create an annoyance if the purpose of the pilot is just to be funny and have no intention to claim or hold a system. Anyhow I enjoyed reading this and look forward to reading more lol Very nice write up. 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. Its kind of like the US in Vietnam saying to the VC that they can't fight like that... Come to a fight and stick around, until we can get our big assets in... Well, what you are seeing now is the Forum Meta in full form trying to get the Devs to back down from this change, so thing can get back to normal for them, so they can force the type of warfare they are strongest in. It don't matter that a bunch of players are enjoying harassing the great powers, its not fun for them, so they want it stomped out before they truly become threaten, since their own "hold" card of Super Escalation doesn't carry the weight it once did. The attacker doesn't need to grind HP that would allow the defender to respond. This actually allows attacker to act like guerrillas in Sov warfare and the major Sov holders can't react in time in many cases because they actually hold more Sov than they should. If their systems were truly occupied in this new occupancy based Sov, there wouldn't be any issues. So what it boils down to is the major Sov holders basically have a new threat the can't counter and are unwilling to adapt, so they come to the forums and pull the "Stops Fights" game design card in an attempt to gain Dev support in rolling back theses changes. What makes this so much more interesting is that at a very high level this is so similar to many of the Null Sec inhabitants actions against many HI Sec inhabitants. Its a form of guerrilla warfare that forces them to scramble about waiting for that attack out of no-where they can't really counter. If they were to take their own medicine, they would realize they are not supposed to be safe anywhere in Eve Online. Just like anyone is vulnerable to any of the smallest ships in Eve High Sec. The Major Sov holders are now vulnerable to anyone who can Entosis their stuff. And they don't like it. Well this is Eve Online!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1036	Posted - 2015.08.06 16:41:01 - [377] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: ooh its going to be exciting, just think of all the big fights you'll get into, has you salivating, am i right! I take it your definition of big fight is 40 dudes poking at each other in shitfit T1 hulls, as that's about all you get when you actually invade anyone who isn't The Imperium, unfortunately. I assure you, our sigs have tried, and the shows of resistance are sad at best, and outright pathetic at worst. "Something something muh killboard efficiency. Stop feeding them kills guys. Srs, dock up and they'll go away in a couple of days." And they're right, we will, because seriously, ** node lasering. A non sov holding corp could dock up and do nothing but sov holders if they want their sov cannot. You choose to fight corps that can dock and wait because you dont really want a fight. You know sov holders cannot dock up and wait you so go find a sov holder and get your big fight. Oh yeah i forgot you have a non-agression pacts with most of the blue doughnut. So the problem again isnt you CANT find a big fight it is you CHOOSE not to. You missed my point. Sov holders absolutely can dock up and do nothing when we come poking for a fight. Why? Because node lasering is cancer, and a lot of us are not about to repeatedly subject ourselves to that garbage, fights be damned. About the only thing actually worth poking for a fight anymore is money moons. Even those are questionable, when you know the aggressors have no real intention of trying to hold the moons, due to location. Let them do whatever and ** off in a couple of days, then patch everything back up. If Fozziesov had've been a thing when PL curb stomped BNI out of their own space for refusing to fight, Brave would likely still be in Catch. That assumes they had enough people willing to put up with node mining.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6504	Posted - 2015.08.06 16:43:59 - [378] - 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!
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 325	Posted - 2015.08.06 16:49:20 - [379] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Eli Stan wrote: By my count, a sixth alliance has made a claim to a system in the Yrton constellation. SpaceMonkey's Alliance Quantum Collective (Technically, IIRC, SMA gave the systems to these guys just before Aegis Sov hit.) Notoriously Incompetent. V.e.G.A. Mercenary Coalition Boys without pants Now up to TCUs from seven different alliances since Aegis implementation. OSS, the alliance of Black Omega Security, has put down a TCU. Small alliance Boys without pants (SLIP) had a run-in with BL, I see, and lost a few Mallers and Augorors. The back-and-forth continues in Yrton. VEGA is back to just a single sov system after having as many as five. MC is up to three, while BOS and SLIP each retain their single system.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 389	Posted - 2015.08.06 16:55:20 - [380] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Icycle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Being quick enough to catch other ships and tackle them, also makes them quick enough to run away. I propose we call them FLEE-TORS as it suits what you are doing now with the hull. All you are doing is the equivalent of going up to someones door and ringing the bell, and running away when you hear them get up to answer the door. To you it's hilarious, and since you are quick you can do that to everybody in the neighborhood, to the people having to constantly get up and reset the door bell it's annoying. If you were ringing the bell for a bit if fisticuffs you would stay, but you aren't and it's annoying. 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. You know where other sov holders are that have a lot of ISK at stake in their sov holdings, you know that if you went to war with them you could be in a big fight in days. The problem is that all the big boys have non agression pacts hence you have CHOSEN not to fight and you come here claiming you cannot find big battles, you cannot find big battles only because you wont not because any game mechanic stops you. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6504	Posted - 2015.08.06 16:59:00 - [381] - 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!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1036	Posted - 2015.08.06 17:13:02 - [382] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: Icycle wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Being quick enough to catch other ships and tackle them, also makes them quick enough to run away. I propose we call them FLEE-TORS as it suits what you are doing now with the hull. All you are doing is the equivalent of going up to someones door and ringing the bell, and running away when you hear them get up to answer the door. To you it's hilarious, and since you are quick you can do that to everybody in the neighborhood, to the people having to constantly get up and reset the door bell it's annoying. If you were ringing the bell for a bit if fisticuffs you would stay, but you aren't and it's annoying. 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. You know where other sov holders are that have a lot of ISK at stake in their sov holdings, you know that if you went to war with them you could be in a big fight in days. The problem is that all the big boys have non agression pacts hence you have CHOSEN not to fight and you come here claiming you cannot find big battles, you cannot find big battles only because you wont not because any game mechanic stops you. The fact that you seem to think that we should reset everyone and poke fights because ~reasons~ proves that Fozziesov isn't doing what it was intended to do. If anything, it's given us more reason to stay exactly the way we are. Until someone with a bad attitude and bigger spacewang pops up, the new mechanics will continue to change the same amount of things it's changed so far: nothing, except to allow randoms to be annoying for a few minutes.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 391	Posted - 2015.08.06 17:32:47 - [383] - Quote Damien Power wrote: I hate the Fossisov stuff.. I left nullsec because 1) the vulnerable times. Nothing really happens until the timer that was set begins but like mentioned before you get mostly trolls just being annoying and not really creating content. Hardly anyone is active except a couple guys who are ratting/mining just to increase the timer. And when I say active I'm talking about people who actually undock! Not have 30 to 80 online sitting in station because they logged in and went to work just to appear online and active. You harldy have any big opps or even small opps in this case. Yea I can fly around hoping to find someone trolling your area But that's boring! I trained all my accounts to fly cap ships and now they don't even get used now! Mostly because you see a system being entosed I guess you can say that Lol you fly to check the system And like mentioned before they run away! It's hard to get people to want to roam in small fleets because the chances are high that all you will find is a ceptor or a tech1 destroyer and occasionally a small camp with a bubble maybe 2 to 3 guys at most. But those guys are only looking for single pilots to gank who aren't immune to bubbles. All in all its boring . Does anyone in nullsec know that entrenched sov holders WILL come and defend their holdings? It seems that none of you do because instead of leaving enough people behind to protect your holdings and finding another vested sov holder to fight you instead just whine falsely on the forums that you CANNOT find anyone to fight. You could CHOOSE to use fozziesov and entoss another nullsec sov holder. You could CHOOSE to fight said sov holder when the must defend against your entossing and get into trillions ISK worth of ship carnage. In short, you could USE rather than fight AGAINST fozziesov to get into large scale fights easier than ever before. But those pesky non agression pacts keep getting in the way, if only CCP would remove that game mechanic that forces you to make non agression pacts, then think of all the big fights you could be getting into, damn you CCP! Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Salvos Rhoska 1212	Posted - 2015.08.06 17:53:20 - [384] - Quote Snowmann wrote: If they were to take their own medicine, they would realize they are not supposed to be safe anywhere in Eve Online. HALLELUJAH! Let us always remember the Golden Rules. pops champagne ------------
Salvos Rhoska 1212	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:02:01 - [385] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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? Thats terrible, man. I really feel for you. Let me console you with my worlds tiniest violin. ------------
Snowmann Arrow Industries 13	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:09:24 - [386] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. What you are talking about is asymmetrical, or guerrilla warfare. Attacking and not holding is the point of that type of warfare. The fact that is boring and tedious for you is the point of that type of warfare. You are being attacked in ways that you would not prefer, again asymmetrical warfare. Symmetrical warfare would mean you are attacked by similar forces in ways you prefer and are used to. Hi Sec players have been attacked asymmetrically for years by many null/low sec groups forcing them to adjust. It is interesting to see how the Null Sec power blocks are now reacting now that they can be asymmetrically attacked by sole players in a truly meaningful way they are forced to react to.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 392	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:13:48 - [387] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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 I miner bump people that come to the system i mine in, do so for as many hours as need be to get back the system for myself. Have had some miners spend weeks in my system being bumped everytime i logged in to EVE. Eventually my will won out in every case. If you think that bumping a mining vessel hour after hour for weeks on end is fun give it a try. I put up with whatever i need to in order to defend what i consider mine, now HTFU and defend yours or gtfo of nullsec. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12072	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:19:26 - [388] - Quote Snowmann wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. What you are talking about is asymmetrical, or guerrilla warfare. Attacking and not holding is the point of that type of warfare. The fact that is boring and tedious for you is the point of that type of warfare. You are being attacked in ways that you would not prefer, again asymmetrical warfare. Symmetrical warfare would mean you are attacked by similar forces in ways you prefer and are used to. Hi Sec players have been attacked asymmetrically for years by many null/low sec groups forcing them to adjust. It is interesting to see how the Null Sec power blocks are now reacting now that they can be asymmetrically attacked by sole players in a truly meaningful way they are forced to react to. What you ans others aren't getting is that we all understand that. We go out all the time during out vulnerability window and kill of little buggers who have no intention other than to ring a door bell. We do it all the time. We can do it forever. We WILL do it forever to protect our space. Or at least till people start refusing to even log in because that kind of thing is boring. Easy killboard padding victory over people who don't care if they lose ships or take space is boring. Watching ALL of us in Sov null (not just Goons) create the fortresses that no one can take because trying would be more maddening that killing all those POSes in pre-dominion Sov. We (some of us anyways) tried to explain this to you types and CCP 6 years ago before Dominion. You didn't listen and the whole game suffered. you (and ccp) aren't listening again while 'we' have already figured out how to game the system to max effect (SELF-HARDENING RENTAL EMPIRES ARE SPROUTING UP, can't you all see that?). Again. This is why history repeats itself, people aren't capable of listening to the people they should. Hopefully it won't take 6 years this time.... Funny side note, the people who supported Dominion were the same kind of people defending this new system. I called them the 'disenfranchised optimists', they were the anti-big group (and BoB/Goons/Old NC/Drone Russians/Stainwagon) types who were SURE that Dominion was the cure, that 'now small groups will be in null!!. 6 years later not a one of them has admitted that they were wrong.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 826	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:22:43 - [389] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: A non sov holding corp could dock up and do nothing but sov holders if they want their sov cannot. You choose to ANNOY corps that can not dock and wait because you dont really want a fight. You know sov holders cannot dock up and wait you out so you go find a sov holder and ANNOY them rather tha fight. Oh yeah i forgot you hate people for working together for common goals. So the problem again isnt you CANT find sov to take it is you CHOOSE not to. I fixed your post. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6506	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:23:04 - [390] - 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!

Salvos Rhoska 1215	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:24:19 - [391] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: This is why history repeats itself, people aren't capable of listening to the people they should. Hopefully it won't take 6 years this time.... So whats ze Final Solution. Please, lay it out here straight. I for one am listening. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6506	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:25:46 - [392] - 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!
Lim Yoona 21	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:35:31 - [393] - Quote Release a squirrel in your house and then you and your friends have to spend hours running around chasing after it. Do this and you will know the new sov system in and out.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 394	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:38:52 - [394] - Quote Snowmann wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. What you are talking about is asymmetrical, or guerrilla warfare. Attacking and not holding is the point of that type of warfare. The fact that is boring and tedious for you is the point of that type of warfare. You are being attacked in ways that you would not prefer, again asymmetrical warfare. Symmetrical warfare would mean you are attacked by similar forces in ways you prefer and are used to. Hi Sec players have been attacked asymmetrically for years by many null/low sec groups forcing them to adjust. It is interesting to see how the Null Sec power blocks are now reacting now that they can be asymmetrically attacked by sole players in a truly meaningful way they are forced to react to. Damn. nice post ! It does seem they forgot about burn jita / amarr. Any of the larger alliances could perma-own jita if they wanted to but burn jita and now amarr was never about owning jita it has always only been about annoying those that live there and nothing else and now that highsec and other regions of EVE can annoy nullsec, nullsec goes running off to mommy with tears in its eyes telling mommy to make the bad people go away because it is ruining their fun and if they are defending their sov how are they going to find time to get back to jita to burn it and annoy the people there just for laughs, it just isnt fair mommy, it just isnt fair! Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Snowmann Arrow Industries 16	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:38:59 - [395] - Quote 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.
Baku Saissore Running with Dogs Stella Nova 0	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:46:19 - [396] - Quote I am certainly a big fan of fozzie sov changes. Many here have pointed out great things that it has brought so i wont go into them. However there seems to be a certain misconception about the key principle behind the mechanics. Trolling or not the attacking side must take the structure/node/stn within the period determined by the defense multiplier. Hence an organised side will ensure industry and military multipliers are kept at a certain minimum. every time a T1 entosis ship loses it's lock is an additional 5 minutes. Even when the entosis timer is 30 minutes, that would put off most but serious attackers. So as long as defense multipliers are kept high enough even a small alliance/corp cam hold on to a constellation. As for trolling/solo ceptors they are my favorite target nowadays. The trick is ... fly a ceptor yourself :)
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12073	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:46:26 - [397] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: This is why history repeats itself, people aren't capable of listening to the people they should. Hopefully it won't take 6 years this time.... So vats ze Final Solution? Please, lay it out here straight. I for one am listening. I just laid it out. The problem is that you are not interested in listening. What you types just don't get (abive what's been said) is that these kinds of situations are win/win for people like me. If CCP does nothing I sit back in my impossible to conquer Ratting systems making loads of isk while padding my killboard with ever increasing numbers of small ships (not the fleet action fun i want though), if they wise up and scrap this horrible system (preferably for a true sandboxy "no sov" situation), we win because we get to have fun with emergent experiences again. One thing that's real funny is the low sec and high sec people in here celebrating a boring null conflcit system. Not understanding that this does nothing but mean more bored null sec playerss in low sec/FW and ganking in high sec... They are literally celebrating the fact that they are about to get ****** around way more often. Shortsightedness is a powerful affliction.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 398	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:47:58 - [398] - Quote 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. 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. 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. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Salvos Rhoska 1215	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:48:23 - [399] - Quote Lim Yoona wrote: Release a squirrel in your house and then you and your friends have to spend hours running around chasing after it. Do this and you will know the new sov system in and out. I know exactly what thats like! So. How about baiting it with some nuts into a trap? How about sallying forth boldly to destroy its home? How about keeping the door closed and watched? How about encircling it so it has no means to escape? How about dressing up as a squirrel and infiltrating its organisation? How about whining real hard to the powers that be that that squirrels are eliminated? If its a really ferocious and persistent squirrel, maybe you will have to surrender a room to it... Ive done all of the above (or, well, most) successfully, and still love the annoying curious little buggers. Squirrels are the spirit animal of the Minmatar, btw. Few people know that. ------------
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12073	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:48:52 - [400] - 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. So when you see (and you will) that this system create even more sov sprawl (because now renters can harden their own systems with pve) like Dominion did, will you come back to this forum and admit you were wrong?

Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 398	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:52:23 - [401] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? Im sure the british thought that guerilla warfare was both unfair and pointless when America used guerilla warfare against them, they were wrong on both accounts and so are you. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Salvos Rhoska 1215	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:54:52 - [402] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: I just laid it out. The problem is that you are not interested in listening. Where exactly? All I saw was accusations and gemeralisations how nobody is listening to you. I did check back again and didnt find it. Vere ist ze Final Solution, preferably in a coherent, itemized and numbered list? ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6511	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:56:07 - [403] - 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!
Snowmann Arrow Industries 20	Posted - 2015.08.06 18:59:39 - [404] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: So when you see (and you will) that this system create even more sov sprawl (because now renters can harden their own systems with pve) like Dominion did, will you come back to this forum and admit you were wrong? If they are active there enough to keep their indices up, they should own it. If we find it is too easy to maintain those levels, that could be adjusted. The point of the mechanic is to ensure they can defend where they are active, but not as easily where they are not. That can of course be gamed by players, but it can be easily adjusted by Devs as well, if needed.
Salvos Rhoska 1216	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:01:46 - [405] - Quote 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. ------------
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 399	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:03:58 - [406] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: 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. So when you see (and you will) that this system create even more sov sprawl (because now renters can harden their own systems with pve) like Dominion did, will you come back to this forum and admit you were wrong? I dont know about him but when you get miners, gas huffers, and other industrialist working throughout your holdings i will proclaim that fozziesov was a total success since it got you to start using the systems you own instead of just sitting on them which is a primary goal of fozziesov. If you do USE it, you SHOULD be able to hold it, so working as intended.... Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6511	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:05:29 - [407] - 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!
Snowmann Arrow Industries 20	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:05:30 - [408] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6512	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:08:07 - [409] - 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!
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 34	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:09:12 - [410] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.

Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12073	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:10:13 - [411] - Quote Snowmann wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: So when you see (and you will) that this system create even more sov sprawl (because now renters can harden their own systems with pve) like Dominion did, will you come back to this forum and admit you were wrong? If they are active there enough to keep their indices up, they should own it. If we find it is too easy to maintain those levels, that could be adjusted. The point of the mechanic is to ensure they can defend where they are active, but not as easily where they are not. That can of course be gamed by players, but it can be easily adjusted by Devs as well, if needed. "it can be adjusted" (Tweaked!) is something we've been told for 12 years. It's a dodge that people (and companies) tell people when they aren't willing to admit that the thing they are doing is fundamentally and fatally flawed. you should read that thread I just linked, you will notice a whole lot of players saying about Dominion what you are saying here about Fozzie Sov. The question still stands, when history repeats , will you be the 1st poster ever to come back and say "you know, I was wrong about that"?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6512	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:11:07 - [412] - 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!
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 34	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:14:58 - [413] - Quote 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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2085	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:15:15 - [414] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: 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. So when you see (and you will) that this system create even more sov sprawl (because now renters can harden their own systems with pve) like Dominion did, will you come back to this forum and admit you were wrong? I dont know about him but when you get miners, gas huffers, and other industrialist working throughout your holdings i will proclaim that fozziesov was a total success since it got you to start using the systems you own instead of just sitting on them which is a primary goal of fozziesov. If you do USE it, you SHOULD be able to hold it, so working as intended.... The issue is it currently weaponize ding dong ditch. I have to get to the door every single time because you might be someone "important" who want my SOV but most of the damn time, you just run away faster than any shotgun can be loaded... That is the stupid part about it. Having to defend your space to hold it is fine as long as either don't have to reply to those stupid ding dong ditch OR I get an effective way to stop you. There is no point to preventing warp out on an inty if he can still burn away at 4k/s since even if you warped on him with probes, by the time you land and re-accelerate, he is already too far away.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2316	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:16:16 - [415] - Quote Trollceptor coalition! It's when things like this go live the way they do that I doubt anyone who works on making this game actually plays it (or takes any input from their cool stunt of marketing people they've let us elect). That and the time where the new map popped up in a window obscuring your module icons.
Salvos Rhoska 1219	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:17:55 - [416] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Iabsolutely guarantee you will ragequit long before I do. I mean you're already butthurt enough over the fact that we even exist. Lets be real here for a second. Alliances of thousands of alts and vast resources are complaining about single disposable frigates trespassing on your lawn. Are you waiting for the government to call the National Guard and SWAT? YOU are the government in your own space. Deal with it. Do something. Adapt. Honestly, if I had unregistered alt near your or in your organisation Id deliberately do this day in day out and carry a cargo extension just to collect all these tears. 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. Lucas Kell wrote: . Try chasing around a few hundred disposable ships fit specifically for evasion then tell me that trollceptors aren't a problem. OOoohh. So now we've gone from a single disposable frigate as earlier, to a few hundred? Holy moly! Well, that escalated quick! ------------
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 400	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:18:23 - [417] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Ganking is emergent game play, WTF? Ganking is intended game play, seriously you think CCP was like OMG we didnt see ganking coming about when we made a game where if you undock ANYWHERE you can get blasted and in a game where by design many ships cannot defend themselves. At CCPs headquarters 10 seconds after EVE launched: damn those crazy gamers we totally didnt see ganking ever coming about, caught us totally off gaurd! Also, more on point, entossing isnt emergent game play either since it is a game mechanic hard coded into EVE. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6514	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:18:31 - [418] - 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!
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12073	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:19:23 - [419] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: ding dong ditch. Rofl, now I feel bad for doing that as a kid. FozzieSov is some karma's revenge!
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 35	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:19:27 - [420] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: There is no point to preventing warp out on an inty if he can still burn away at 4k/s since even if you warped on him with probes, by the time you land and re-accelerate, he is already too far away. You don't need to chase him. Just grab a T1 jamming frig and cut his entosis off. Job done.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6514	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:21:05 - [421] - 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 - [422] - 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!
alpha36 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 49	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:25:17 - [423] - Quote One of the cool things about EVE that has fallen by the wayside like many emergent things was the ability to 'blockade' and lockdown an area or station. Colloquially known as the hellcamp. I feel like npc 0.0 is too safe and theres little to no risk involved these days. It used to be that if someone was in your space and up in your grill basing out of npc you could go in there with a freighter full of bubbles and camp that **** for 30 days until they die and give up, leave. The interdiction nullified tech 3's kinda eased that strain because they could still undock a fleet and run around doing things. They still werent gonna do much sov stuff without dreads and supers so it was sort of ok. The interdiction nullified interceptor is one of the worst changes in recent years given there vast utility and even now the ability to capture, reinforce and influence sov events. Coupled with npc 0.0 the trollceptor is just awful and unbalanced gameplay. There needs to be a better way to sit on somebody who bases out of npc 0.0 and interceptors need to lose their nullification, or keep them nullified but they need to lose all combat and entosis viability. Thanks.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2087	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:26:49 - [424] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: There is no point to preventing warp out on an inty if he can still burn away at 4k/s since even if you warped on him with probes, by the time you land and re-accelerate, he is already too far away. You don't need to chase him. Just grab a T1 jamming frig and cut his entosis off. Job done. You think SOV game play should be a rather large game of ding dong ditch? Because that's what SOV trolling is right now.
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 35	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:28:25 - [425] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: ]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. Nobody tells us to do anything. There are no CTA's in my alliance. As for me or my fellow alliance members 'showing up in an interceptor' we almost always have a cruiser as our entosis ship with frig and dessy support. We entosis stuff in the hope you will bring a fleet to fight us. Goons never disappoint on that front but because your whole tactic is blob warfare you bring 2-3 fleets (harpys, ferox and cerb fleets normally with numbers of 120-160 usually) to take us on. Obviously we can't take that on with a 20-25 man gang so we usually blueball and try and pick off stragglers when you leave - typical asymetrical tactics. Now if Goons really wanted a fight they would bring a roughly equal force to fight (you always have the big guns to call in later if things aren't going according to plan) but you NEVER do, so obviously your not really looking for a 'fight' just a massacre and complain when we won't play willing victims.
Snowmann Arrow Industries 21	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:30:16 - [426] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. In any case, it does seem effective, in what it is currently intended to do. And no, I'm not upset with ganking, I have done it many times with my various characters. 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. That isn't directed at you, just some organizations that force many into forms of gamplay outside of their preferred area of operations, but complain about it when it starts happening to them. And it is so interesting to see the lengths they will go to try and dispel that.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2087	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:31:27 - [427] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: ]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. Nobody tells us to do anything. There are no CTA's in my alliance. As for me or my fellow alliance members 'showing up in an interceptor' we almost always have a cruiser as our entosis ship with frig and dessy support. We entosis stuff in the hope you will bring a fleet to fight us. Goons never disappoint on that front but because your whole tactic is blob warfare you bring 2-3 fleets (harpys, ferox and cerb fleets normally with numbers of 120-160 usually) to take us on. Obviously we can't take that on with a 20-25 man gang so we usually blueball and try and pick off stragglers when you leave - typical asymetrical tactics. Now if Goons really wanted a fight they would bring a roughly equal force to fight (you always have the big guns to call in later if things aren't going according to plan) but you NEVER do, so obviously your not really looking for a 'fight' just a massacre and complain when we won't play willing victims. If you really wanted a fight, you would attack someone who can't flash form 3 fleet at the drop of a hat... Your whole "they form too big so we blueball them" argument falls flat on it's head when you only ring the bell on the imperium. Go poke some smaller entity and you will get a form up to defend around your own size. The real issue is that you are not looking for fights. You have a completely different agenda but try to mask it with excuses.
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 37	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:35:51 - [428] - Quote alpha36 wrote: I feel like npc 0.0 is too safe and theres little to no risk involved these days. It used to be that if someone was in your space and up in your grill basing out of npc you could go in there with a freighter full of bubbles and camp that **** for 30 days until they die and give up, leave. So people are willing to HELLCAMP NPC STATIONS FOR A WHOLE MONTH with no pvp content to destroy an enemy yet the same people won't chase around a lone interceptor? I think you just blew Lucas Kell's arguement about entosis wars being boring out of the water.
Salvos Rhoska 1221	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:37:16 - [429] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Whats boring about the tears of thousands of alts in coalition about a single frigate stepping on their lawn? I think you may have, in your complacency, lost the picture here of what EVE is about. As you can see, plenty of people see thisnfor what it really is. The change may not have fixed Sov entirely, but its a step in the right direction. If your bosses were to hire me instead of you as spindoctor (im open for negotiation) thats the tact I would take. You wont win this one. Best you can do is mitigate future impending changes that will make one interceptor on your lawn seem like a fond memory. If you cant HTFU and adapt with changes, perhaps that is exactly the reason for someone else who can, to step up. Historically all empires fall invariably due to complacency, luxury, self-entitlement and decadence, even if no external force is strong enough to engage them directly. Also: "If you've read other thread, blogs, reddit, etc,-á" Please, you cant be serious... ------------
alpha36 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 51	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:38:44 - [430] - Quote 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.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6516	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:39:32 - [431] - 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 - [432] - 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!
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 37	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:43:35 - [433] - Quote 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 ****.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6516	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:48:31 - [434] - 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!
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2316	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:49:46 - [435] - Quote Occasionally, they tell us to upvote threads and all but I never do it because I just keep pressing F1 and it doesn't do anything.
Salvos Rhoska 1221	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:51:30 - [436] - Quote Threats to report for censure, all caps laughing and then claims of confidential emails that will not be revealed. Hmmm. ------------
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2089	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:54:28 - [437] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Threats to report for censure, all caps laughing and then claims of confidential emails that will not be revealed. Hmmm. We are not allowed to post the mails that are available on eve skunk that mention entosis troll ship being on contract or a call to the alliance to come post positive stuff about the sov change to be sure CCP don't see to large of a majority in support of changing some of it. For all I know, I'm about to be forum banned now... Welp...
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2316	Posted - 2015.08.06 19:55:44 - [438] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Threats to report for censure, all caps laughing and then claims of confidential emails that will not be revealed. Hmmm. You should see the local chat when some of us end up in the same system. Some of it is pretty facepalmy, from both sides. Also, isn't there CAOD for this inter-alliance shitposting? Can you continue doing it there? We want to talk more about how Fozziesov is really boring and hasn't really changed 0.0 much at all and how CCP doesn't listen to the CSM, unless they want to fire someone.
Salvos Rhoska 1221	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:07:06 - [439] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Threats to report for censure, all caps laughing and then claims of confidential emails that will not be revealed. Hmmm. We are not allowed to post the mails that are available on eve skunk that mention entosis troll ship being on contract or a call to the alliance to come post positive stuff about the sov change to be sure CCP don't see to large of a majority in support of changing some of it. For all I know, I'm about to be forum banned now... Welp... Well, I for one hope you are not and think you walked the line just fine on candour. But, subversion and deception are part and parcel of this game, and this forum is an extension. A forum CTA for alliance members is perfectly valid, whether it did or did not happen. Lets not be naive here, you and I. We both know that all interested parties (for whichever reason) are arguing en-force and deliberately to pursue their own agenda. Lets all not try to take this all too seriously, its a game that we all share afterall, and remember also that CCP has to read through all the politics for the core points of feedback. I for one, and still hoping for someone to post itemized and numbered list of suggestions, especially as supported by experience with sov change. Ive seen them in other threads and some were quite good. I miss them here. Gives structure to the discussion. ------------
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1038	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:10:03 - [440] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: 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. You have no idea how much you'd have to pay me to do that stupid **** on an even halfway regular basis. Ratting is terrible; chasing interceptors is somehow far worse. I get the feeling that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2317	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:11:02 - [441] - Quote 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
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6516	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:17:08 - [442] - 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!
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2091	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:19:40 - [443] - Quote Let's put discussion forward now and throw in a stupid idea. What if we made T1 link only work on abandoned SOV but require the T2 link for other systems. Taking defenseless SOV is still just as easy but anything occupied require a minimum commitement.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6746	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:24:55 - [444] - Quote I could retort, but blue lists... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Salvos Rhoska 1221	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:30:53 - [445] - Quote 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. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6518	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:36:32 - [446] - 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!
Panthe3 Black The Branded Few Test Alliance Please Ignore 3	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:37:03 - [447] - Quote It's FW without LP
Kit Bradovich Dicistro Viridae 0	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:48:50 - [448] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: ]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. Nobody tells us to do anything. There are no CTA's in my alliance. As for me or my fellow alliance members 'showing up in an interceptor' we almost always have a cruiser as our entosis ship with frig and dessy support. We entosis stuff in the hope you will bring a fleet to fight us. Goons never disappoint on that front but because your whole tactic is blob warfare you bring 2-3 fleets (harpys, ferox and cerb fleets normally with numbers of 120-160 usually) to take us on. Obviously we can't take that on with a 20-25 man gang so we usually blueball and try and pick off stragglers when you leave - typical asymetrical tactics. Now if Goons really wanted a fight they would bring a roughly equal force to fight (you always have the big guns to call in later if things aren't going according to plan) but you NEVER do, so obviously your not really looking for a 'fight' just a massacre and complain when we won't play willing victims. Well goonswarm fits their mascot (Bee) Lol because bees by themselves are only an annoyance until you squash it :-) but when bees swarm they are dangerous. Point being they know they are only dangerous in large overwhelming fleets ! By themselves they are another -hit against the Kb (squashed) bug :-)
Snowmann Arrow Industries 23	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:59:42 - [449] - 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. 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.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2319	Posted - 2015.08.06 20:59:50 - [450] - 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. I'll give it a try. 1) Trollceptors are bad. There are a bunch of reasons why but perhaps the most 'visible' reason is that they can avoid any actual confrontation, anytime, anywhere and still be as effective at the sov game as any other ship, which I guess is alright because CCP said they didn't want limitations but the boring truth is that we (the players) need limitations, otherwise we'll be bored shitless by the 'most effective' methods that us silly human beings always revert to using. We need you to dictate us a meta, not let us come up with one =p Anecdotal evidence? I was in a trollceptor fleet to go and sovlaser a bunch of buildings 3 regions away purely to ** off the people there. We ran a trollceptor fleet to defend out stuff, purley to off the other guys. What am I getting at here? We're flying a ship that's good at pissing people off because pissing people off is a good way to win a war. It's an efficient way. It's what humans do! See? We need you to tell us how to do it. We need you to figure out how to have fun for us because we wont do it on our own. Solution? Limitations, yes, I know, bad word, but if you want to force us to have fun, you need to do it. 2) Defense indexes are a bit meh at the moment. They are numbers that increase the amount of time it takes for an attacker to capture stuff. Good enough, I guess. It certainly provides an advantage but contrary to the amount of mind numbingly boring activities you have to submit yourself to in order to get any of this... You get the idea. Defense indexes are high in places that get a lot of traffic, that was the intention and that is working and maybe we are at fault for trying to hold on to our colours on the map. Anecdotal evidence? I went ratting for a while. It was terrible. I was going to mine as well but luckily, someone blew up my ship before I got there. Solution? Dare I say, bonuses to ship's parameters? More speed, better resists, that kind of thing =x It would do something for the next point on my list as well but it also has a chance to be abused and be very overpowered. 3) A reason to actually have sov. Right now, the only people who supposedly have fun with fozziesov (Sorry, Aegis Sov) are those who do not really want any sov for themselves. If sov were a thing that meant anything beyond colours on Verite's influence map, maybe it would give more of an incentive to go for sov, try to hold sov and actually put some effort behind attacking it, defending it and you get the idea. Alternatively... screw it all! Yes, make quality of space dynamic. Make asteroid belts disappear, make rats move away if a system/constellation/region is farmed to Narnja and back. That would force people to move around if they want to keep doing what they're doing. This is probably too much like a new sov system altogether and would require a lot of tweaks and changes to the rest of Eve to prevent everyone from just going to space that does not change. Also, this may be too much of a wormholer approach to the empire building that sov seems to be supposed to be. Quote: Has your small alliance been able to capture space for the first time ever? I have seen a little bit of it but on a large scale, there does not seem to be much of a difference. Maybe, once all current 0.0 players get bored enough to log in for sovgames in their current state, new and fresh alliances can come in! Maybe that is the change you need.. maybe you just need to ban everyone who is in an alliance with more than 500 people and then wait and see what happens. Quote:** Are you playing World of Warships while AFK capping 800 command nodes? Essentially. I really hated the Myogi when I got it but then I started liking it a lot before I got the Kongo and now I am absolutely in love with it! There are too many quotes in this post, so I am going to continue without a quote. Has your corporation or alliance's playstyle been radically altered by fozziesov? As opposed to before Aegis Sov or 6 months ago? Compared to before the update, no, not really. Compared to 6 months ago, yes. We're not flying ships across half of 0.0 anymore to have big wars. You know, the unbearable 10% TiDi slideshow kind of situations that are hailed as the biggest online battles by all kinds of media that might not even have anything to do with video games. Phew, done. I think this was the longest post I ever typed up, except for that one time where I tried to make a suggestion about a working bounty system with purchaseable killrights and hitmen and space assassinations and whaaa! I hope it wasn't too much bullshit :3

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.

Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 748	Posted - 2015.08.07 03:50:10 - [481] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: 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. Why so you can destroy what groups of people worked for for years and have it go poof. Making stations destructible sets the precedent that even NPC owned stations should be destroyed. Because if no one can have their player owned station why should you be immune in your NPC owned station. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5558	Posted - 2015.08.07 03:52:28 - [482] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: Why so you can destroy what groups of people worked for for years and have it go poof. By this logic why should we be able to destroy Titans or supercarriers? Yang Aurilen wrote: Making stations destructible sets the precedent that even NPC owned stations should be destroyed. Because if no one can have their player owned station why should you be immune in your NPC owned station. 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. 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.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1043	Posted - 2015.08.07 03:52:44 - [483] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: 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. That's because we know exactly what would/will happen if/when sov stations are made destructible. Everyone will just start keeping the majority of their **** in NPC stations. Oh, and since there are VERY few close NPC stations, the east will likely become even more of a ghetto than it already is.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5558	Posted - 2015.08.07 04:02:42 - [484] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: That's because we know exactly what would/will happen if/when sov stations are made destructible. Everyone will just start keeping the majority of their **** in NPC stations. Oh, and since there are VERY few close NPC stations, the east will likely become even more of a ghetto than it already is. So all that talk about hi-sec and low-sec dwellers being risk-averse is just projection, then? 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.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 115	Posted - 2015.08.07 04:17:23 - [485] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: 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.. It's become a troll contest because sov has left the domain of alliance level game play to solo insert small, fast ship here. Make the attacker commit multiple ships and/or larger assets and you will begin to remove the ability to troll sov level game play. At least with a structure grind we got to see flashing lights and consumed ammo spurring the market, however little. I'm still using the same 10k stack of missiles I bought just before Fozzie sov hit because I haven't even needed to shoot other players! To actually contribute to the discussion, grinding systems is boring. I can honestly say I never afk mined or ratted until fozziesov was introduced because I cant be arsed to grind up system after system. I'm waiting for the fun, cuz if you look at my KB, I haven't actually killed much in the times I've been able to make it to fleets since starting my new job. Chasing a ceptor who already has a 6 jump head start nor does grinding indices get my juices flowing to keep getting on and trying. And I am in no ways alone in this line of thinking. If I can throw out my 2 cents on how to alter & improve the system: -Structure HP brought back so players have something to shoot, even if it's not each other. -Structures have 100% resistances -Entosis now reduces resistances at some rate based on index level. Vice versa for defender. -Multiple hostile entosis can be used to increase rate of decay. Vice versa for defender. -Command nodes handled the same way but start at 50% HP and 0 "disruption" --Hostile entosis increases "disruption" reducing resistances and remote rep effectiveness to the structure. --Friendly entosis pauses Hostile Entosis cycles and/or reduces "disruption," but does not restore resistances - no bonus rep can be gained in such a way. --Repping to 100% saves the node and locks invulnerability status. --Destruction.. well destroys it. --Nodes slowly generate HP on their own if left untouched to prevent nodes being left out for days at a time with nobody defending/attacking. -Vulnerability timers go away. Structures can be hit at any time, any day and RF timers handled identically to Dominion. There were no actual problems with Dominion sov. It was merely incomplete. Anyone here can tell you Dominion sov was said to have many more patches on the way to improve the QOL of the attackers and defenders, patches we never saw. The entosis link offers a chance to give a boost to the attacker in a quasi-Dominion-Fozzie sov. From there, the future structure patch can be part of the long promised additional features to holding sov. EDIT- I realize my ideas benefit blobbing. But there is literally nothing you can do without implementing game breaking limitations that can not be done better by blobbing than by a smaller entity. The idea is to give then an opening, not hold the door open for them.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5559	Posted - 2015.08.07 04:25:08 - [486] - Quote If you bring back structure HP, that once again turns sov into a game which smaller entities are locked out of by default. Larger entities will always be able to bring more DPS or remote repair than they will. 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.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1043	Posted - 2015.08.07 04:31:10 - [487] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: If you bring back structure HP, that once again turns sov into a game which smaller entities are locked out of by default. Larger entities will always be able to bring more DPS or remote repair than they will. Not at all. In fact, I think the better option for this iteration of sov would have been a marriage of Dominion sov, and Fozziesov. Basically, keep structure HP, but put it on a sliding scale based on how high the indexes are. For some random numbers I am pulling out of my ass right this second: Index 1: HP that could be chewed through in 5-10 minutes by 10 T1 cruisers (or equivalent). Index 2: 15-20 minutes with 20-30 T1 cruisers (or equivalent). Index 3: 20-30 minutes with 40-50. Index 4: 20-30 minutes with 50-100. Index 5: 20-30 with 150-200. Index 6: Bring supers and dreads, or a really large poopsock.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5559	Posted - 2015.08.07 04:39:58 - [488] - Quote Ah, of course, because the one weakness of huge coalitions like Imperium is their inability to repel cruiser gangs. 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.
Panthe3 Black The Branded Few Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2015.08.07 05:01:01 - [489] - Quote its just plain bad, really really bad. id rather go back to 2005 sov and that was ****.
Panthe3 Black The Branded Few Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2015.08.07 05:02:02 - [490] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: If you bring back structure HP, that once again turns sov into a game which smaller entities are locked out of by default. Larger entities will always be able to bring more DPS or remote repair than they will. Not at all. In fact, I think the better option for this iteration of sov would have been a marriage of Dominion sov, and Fozziesov. Basically, keep structure HP, but put it on a sliding scale based on how high the indexes are. For some random numbers I am pulling out of my ass right this second: Index 1: HP that could be chewed through in 5-10 minutes by 10 T1 cruisers (or equivalent). Index 2: 15-20 minutes with 20-30 T1 cruisers (or equivalent). Index 3: 20-30 minutes with 40-50. Index 4: 20-30 minutes with 50-100. Index 5: 20-30 with 150-200. Index 6: Bring supers and dreads, or a really large poopsock. something anything, the current sov game is terribad. entosis my ass

Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 749	Posted - 2015.08.07 05:02:09 - [491] - Quote What if, the smaller entities became friends with each other so they can't get screwed over by the imperium? Sure they can pew pew each other but if they are actually being threatened by the imperium is BLUE TIME. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Panthe3 Black The Branded Few Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2015.08.07 05:10:28 - [492] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: What if, the smaller entities became friends with each other so they can't get screwed over by the imperium? Sure they can pew pew each other but if they are actually being threatened by the imperium is BLUE TIME. prob is now too many small groups with agendas of thier own. and the bigger groups more established dont really like to take in new ideas. would be great to se the south united like the north, but as history has ALWAYS shown it is always at war with itself.
Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 749	Posted - 2015.08.07 05:20:52 - [493] - Quote Panthe3 Black wrote: Yang Aurilen wrote: What if, the smaller entities became friends with each other so they can't get screwed over by the imperium? Sure they can pew pew each other but if they are actually being threatened by the imperium is BLUE TIME. prob is now too many small groups with agendas of thier own. and the bigger groups more established dont really like to take in new ideas. would be great to se the south united like the north, but as history has ALWAYS shown it is always at war with itself. So you're saying that the "small guys" can't even be friends with their other "small guys" neighbors to save themselves even if an imperium blob is incoming to hellcamp them back to empire space? And the "small guys" expect to actually take down a large group like the imperium by themselves this way? Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6526	Posted - 2015.08.07 06:08:31 - [494] - 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 - [495] - 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!
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 403	Posted - 2015.08.07 06:30:10 - [496] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. But as ive asked a dozen times before, what exactly keeps you from taking a fleet and kicking your neighbors ass, nothing. There has never been a mechanic that prevented you from doing so and since entossing has come about the barrier to combat is at an all time low, yet all we get from nullsec is more fabricated reasons why you cannot fight one another. Stop posting, get off your space butts and find another alliance to entoss and show up when its battle time, easy. 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. What got you to burn Jita, did CCP put some mechanic in game that said burn Jita or we are canceling all sov mechanics, nope you just made a plan got off your space butts and did it. Now use that same drive to bring space havoc to nullsec and all will be good. but..... You wont, not cant, JUST WONT. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13996	Posted - 2015.08.07 06:36:48 - [497] - 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. You can't ignore that the jump changes pretty much put the kibosh on the level of escalation that allowed those big newsworthy fights to happen. Is it still technically possible to have another BR5? Yes. Is it going to happen again? Probably not, because it would be much more of a pain in the ass for both sides, unless it was pre arranged. "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. 5559	Posted - 2015.08.07 07:01:04 - [498] - Quote 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? 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.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6746	Posted - 2015.08.07 08:53:19 - [499] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: Panthe3 Black wrote: Yang Aurilen wrote: What if, the smaller entities became friends with each other so they can't get screwed over by the imperium? Sure they can pew pew each other but if they are actually being threatened by the imperium is BLUE TIME. prob is now too many small groups with agendas of thier own. and the bigger groups more established dont really like to take in new ideas. would be great to se the south united like the north, but as history has ALWAYS shown it is always at war with itself. So you're saying that the "small guys" can't even be friends with their other "small guys" neighbors to save themselves even if an imperium blob is incoming to hellcamp them back to empire space? And the "small guys" expect to actually take down a large group like the imperium by themselves this way? If they all start being blue, might as well be blue to people that can stop them from being owned, which isn't the other small guys... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 997	Posted - 2015.08.07 09:25:09 - [500] - 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... Lack of reason to do so. What always irks me about EVE is that if you look at the game from the PoV of power, resources and influence, you must behave like a total scrub if you want something "fun" to happen. Solo PvP, gang roams, NPSI fleets - objectively speaking, it all is utterly pointless and wastes your time and potentially resources for no gain. But it provides what many people even log in to play the game, so bottom line that it's good practice. When something gets serious, on the other hand, it quickly becomes unfun for everyone involved. It's not really feasible to completely destroy someone in this game (you can do that in theory, but in practice it's too easy to commit something that falls under definitions of TOS-prohibited actions), so people aim directly for players, and what do you do when video game is what you have? Break morale, make people not want to login, or just move their ingame assets somewhere they will be irrelevant. In a competitive sandbox game about player groups and powers there's no way around it, at least I don't see one. And because of that I don't see it as a good idea to try and change that. Instead, at least reducing annoyance of interacting with raw game mechanics that doesn't really involve other people would be a good thing, but not much else you can do. I'm not going to repost my unoriginal ideas on entosis here for the umpteenth time, just pointing something fundamental out. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become

Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5560	Posted - 2015.08.07 10:13:14 - [501] - Quote 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. 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.
Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 751	Posted - 2015.08.07 10:27:34 - [502] - Quote 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. You forgot the part where any major WH entity is dug in real hard with full moon coverage and no way to realistically evict them in interceptors with magical sov mining laser I. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 515	Posted - 2015.08.07 10:34:06 - [503] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: You forgot the part where any major WH entity is dug in real hard with full moon coverage and no way to realistically evict them in interceptors with magical sov mining laser I. You can't realistically evict a major null entity with interceptors and sov lasers either. All you can do is annoy them a bit.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5560	Posted - 2015.08.07 10:35:41 - [504] - Quote All I'm hearing is more excuses from nullsec dwellers about how hard it is to fight things. 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.
B0RG 0VERLORD Viziam Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.08.07 10:46:01 - [505] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: All I'm hearing is more excuses from nullsec dwellers about how hard it is to fight things. if you don't live out in null then i think your opinion shouldn't count towards anything related to this patch,as it has no relevance to hs dwellers
Salvos Rhoska 1224	Posted - 2015.08.07 10:51:08 - [506] - Quote B0RG 0VERLORD wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: All I'm hearing is more excuses from nullsec dwellers about how hard it is to fight things. if you don't live out in null then i think your opinion shouldn't count towards anything related to this patch,as it has no relevance to hs dwellers Perhaps true. But inversly that hasnt ever stopped null residents lobbying on HS changes. (Though admittedly everyones got an alt in HS anyways) Just sayin'. ------------
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5560	Posted - 2015.08.07 10:58:11 - [507] - Quote B0RG 0VERLORD wrote: if you don't live out in null then i think your opinion shouldn't count towards anything related to this patch,as it has no relevance to hs dwellers If all nullsec dwellers can agree to shut up about anything in empire or wormhole space, I would consider not talking about nullsec (despite the fact that I lived in nullsec very recently) a perfectly reasonable tradeoff. I look forward to the imminent end to "nerf hisec" threads. 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.
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 44	Posted - 2015.08.07 11:11:14 - [508] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: 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. Why so you can destroy what groups of people worked for for years and have it go poof. Making stations destructible sets the precedent that even NPC owned stations should be destroyed. Because if no one can have their player owned station why should you be immune in your NPC owned station. They should allow stations to be destroyed, any assets trapped there get teleported to your Capital system. If that is destroyed they get transfered to the nearest low/null npc station. If station is held by an attacker enemy assets remained trapped in station. Keeping or destroying stations then becomes an important tactical choice for an attacker.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1045	Posted - 2015.08.07 11:11:56 - [509] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: B0RG 0VERLORD wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: All I'm hearing is more excuses from nullsec dwellers about how hard it is to fight things. if you don't live out in null then i think your opinion shouldn't count towards anything related to this patch,as it has no relevance to hs dwellers Perhaps true. But inversly that hasnt ever stopped null residents lobbying on HS changes. (Though admittedly everyones got an alt in HS anyways) Just sayin'. I actually have three. ;)
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 44	Posted - 2015.08.07 11:16:41 - [510] - Quote 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!

Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 44	Posted - 2015.08.07 11:19:32 - [511] - Quote 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?
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 44	Posted - 2015.08.07 11:25:16 - [512] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Yang Aurilen wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: [quote=mydingaling]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. Why so you can destroy what groups of people worked for for years and have it go poof. Making stations destructible sets the precedent that even NPC owned stations should be destroyed. Because if no one can have their player owned station why should you be immune in your NPC owned station. They should allow stations to be destroyed, any assets trapped there get teleported to your Capital system. If that is destroyed they get transfered to the nearest low/null npc station. If station is held by an attacker the enemies assets remained trapped in station. Keeping or destroying stations then becomes an important tactical choice for an attacker.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1045	Posted - 2015.08.07 11:35:41 - [513] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Akballah Kassan wrote: Yang Aurilen wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: [quote=mydingaling]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. Why so you can destroy what groups of people worked for for years and have it go poof. Making stations destructible sets the precedent that even NPC owned stations should be destroyed. Because if no one can have their player owned station why should you be immune in your NPC owned station. They should allow stations to be destroyed, any assets trapped there get teleported to your Capital system. If that is destroyed they get transfered to the nearest low/null npc station. If station is held by an attacker the enemies assets remained trapped in station. Keeping or destroying stations then becomes an important tactical choice for an attacker. The problem with that, is that it could be gamed by defenders in a **** hit the fan scenario. Stations are expensive, but they're not as expensive as a trapped capital fleet, for example.
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 45	Posted - 2015.08.07 12:46:55 - [514] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: The problem with that, is that it could be gamed by defenders in a **** hit the fan scenario. Stations are expensive, but they're not as expensive as a trapped capital fleet, for example. Not sure I understand what you mean. If the attackers know an enemy capital fleet is trapped in a station that gets captured the attackers would have a choice to hold the station and trap the capitals or destroy the station for strategic value and let the caps 'escape' to the enemy capital.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2094	Posted - 2015.08.07 12:55:13 - [515] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: The problem with that, is that it could be gamed by defenders in a ** hit the fan scenario. Stations are expensive, but they're not as expensive as a trapped capital fleet, for example. Not sure I understand what you mean. If the attackers know an enemy capital fleet is trapped in a station that gets captured the attackers would have a choice to hold the station and trap the capitals or destroy the station for strategic value and let the caps 'escape' to the enemy capital. What prevent me from having an "accidental" friendly fire incident on the station when I know ** is hitting the fan?
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 45	Posted - 2015.08.07 13:44:57 - [516] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Akballah Kassan wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: The problem with that, is that it could be gamed by defenders in a ** hit the fan scenario. Stations are expensive, but they're not as expensive as a trapped capital fleet, for example. Not sure I understand what you mean. If the attackers know an enemy capital fleet is trapped in a station that gets captured the attackers would have a choice to hold the station and trap the capitals or destroy the station for strategic value and let the caps 'escape' to the enemy capital. What prevent me from having an "accidental" friendly fire incident on the station when I know ** is hitting the fan? I must be missing something. How would that effect anything?
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2097	Posted - 2015.08.07 13:49:39 - [517] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Akballah Kassan wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: The problem with that, is that it could be gamed by defenders in a ** hit the fan scenario. Stations are expensive, but they're not as expensive as a trapped capital fleet, for example. Not sure I understand what you mean. If the attackers know an enemy capital fleet is trapped in a station that gets captured the attackers would have a choice to hold the station and trap the capitals or destroy the station for strategic value and let the caps 'escape' to the enemy capital. What prevent me from having an "accidental" friendly fire incident on the station when I know ** is hitting the fan? I must be missing something. How would that effect anything? 1- Failcascade happeneing 2- Lots of assets still trapped in station under control but not enough time to form a move/evac OP 3- Rush for shell alliance with a bunch of guy transfering 4- Shoot your station 5- Assets transfered for you to nearest safe station where it can't really be trapped/destroyed Losing a bunch of suicide dread beat losing an entire staging station worth of assets if you get dropped on anyway.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1000	Posted - 2015.08.07 14:13:15 - [518] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: 1- Failcascade happeneing 2- Lots of assets still trapped in station under control but not enough time to form a move/evac OP 3- Rush for shell alliance with a bunch of guy transfering 4- Shoot your station 5- Assets transfered for you to nearest safe station where it can't really be trapped/destroyed Losing a bunch of suicide dread beat losing an entire staging station worth of assets if you get dropped on anyway. Let us not forget that they are transferred with no chance in hell of being intercepted too (as per suggestion). We nerfed gun mining, but now people are suggesting gun hauling... Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
John E Normus The Conference Elite CODE. 625	Posted - 2015.08.07 15:38:58 - [519] - Quote How about if a station gets popped the stuff inside drops right there in a big, cracked station egg wreck? Teleporting? LOL Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2097	Posted - 2015.08.07 15:41:57 - [520] - Quote John E Normus wrote: How about if a station gets popped the stuff inside drops right there in a big, cracked station egg wreck? Teleporting? LOL Let me make a list of the valuable assets alliance will be willing to leave in stations beside the very bare minimum while moving everything else in NPC ones that can't be destroyed.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6528	Posted - 2015.08.07 17:22:09 - [521] - 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 - [522] - 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 - [523] - 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!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1047	Posted - 2015.08.07 17:49:29 - [524] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. I have to agree completely here. The onus is no longer on us. Give us (and the attackers) an actual reason to commit, and to fight, and things might change. Until then, all they've done is change the bandage on a festering wound, without cleaning it first. Looks better, but still infected.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2323	Posted - 2015.08.07 18:40:30 - [525] - Quote Like I said, we're not having fun on our own and if they keep letting us come up with 'metas' we wont. We need to be forced to have fun, we need limitations.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6749	Posted - 2015.08.07 20:46:13 - [526] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. I have to agree completely here. The onus is no longer on us. Give us (and the attackers) an actual reason to commit, and to fight, and things might change. Until then, all they've done is change the bandage on a festering wound, without cleaning it first. Looks better, but still infected. Well, null will remain the area that wannabes will have gank ops in between their farming in highsec Kiandoshia wrote: Like I said, we're not having fun on our own and if they keep letting us come up with 'metas' we wont. We need to be forced to have fun, we need limitations. More fatigue. More structure lasering and timers will do it. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 450	Posted - 2015.08.07 21:07:34 - [527] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: . We need to be forced to have fun, we need limitations. I vote the quoted sentence to be the saddest ever to be posted on these forums :(
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6749	Posted - 2015.08.07 21:31:52 - [528] - Quote I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1047	Posted - 2015.08.07 21:34:49 - [529] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all It would help if they'd turn on the windshield wipers every once in a while though.
Nicolai Serkanner Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective 451	Posted - 2015.08.07 21:45:28 - [530] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all It said : "forced to have fun." That is not ironic, it is heartbreakingly sad on a level beyond believe that gamers have succumbed to this state of mind. It is entitlement on God level.

Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1047	Posted - 2015.08.07 21:51:07 - [531] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all It said : "forced to have fun." That is not ironic, it is heartbreakingly sad on a level beyond believe that gamers have succumbed to this state of mind. It is entitlement on God level. This is what happens when you leave humans to their own devices. Efficiency will always supersede fun. If you looks at nearly any game (especially mmos), early mystique and wonder pretty rapidly give way to min/maxing, theorycrafting, and in the case of Eve, metagaming on a ridiculously high level. Those who do not adopt these things, quickly find themselves in the dustbin. That's where fun in any sort of competitive game lands you.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 326	Posted - 2015.08.07 22:34:25 - [532] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Eli Stan wrote: (The Yrton constellation in Cloud Ring has been interesting to watch, though. Go check out how often Sov has flipped there since, and just prior to, Aegis.) By my count, a sixth alliance has made a claim to a system in the Yrton constellation. SpaceMonkey's Alliance Quantum Collective (Technically, IIRC, SMA gave the systems to these guys just before Aegis Sov hit.) Notoriously Incompetent. V.e.G.A. Mercenary Coalition Boys without pants Now up to TCUs from seven different alliances since Aegis implementation. OSS, the alliance of Black Omega Security, has put down a TCU. Small alliance Boys without pants (SLIP) had a run-in with BL, I see, and lost a few Mallers and Augorors. And now eight! Welcome, Suddenly Spaceships. Looks like Boys without pants is declining to defend their claim. OSS, MC and VEGA continue to have TCUs up.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5561	Posted - 2015.08.07 22:56:53 - [533] - Quote 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. 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13999	Posted - 2015.08.08 01:04:07 - [534] - 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. And now they just straight up don't happen. Which is apparently... better? "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.
Anna Phylaxxis Gurlz with Gunz 4	Posted - 2015.08.08 02:34:10 - [535] - Quote I didn't join because of some videos of big battles. I just know it means I'll be fodder/meatshield for X years until until I graduate to pee-on status. Seems like a job to me, but I can respect those who do it well. It probably took alot of time and effort to get to that point. I'd like to try null, but don't want to be a piddle-in-a-puddle. So it's off to lowsec for me it seems... I joined because I get to be a ***, shoot at whoever/whatever I want, die alot and otherwise just enjoy laughing with other people who just want to have fun playing a game. Eve is awesome game, so I can't see all the complaining on the forums I do hope you guys get things worked out though. Just do like I do and shoot everything! Way too much fun Anaphylaxis Emergency Plan** Everyone at risk for anaphylaxis should have an anaphylaxis emergency plan with clear instructions on how to treat symptoms and strategies to reduce risks.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6749	Posted - 2015.08.08 03:36:46 - [536] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: 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. And now they just straight up don't happen. Which is apparently... better? The problem is it also got a bunch of people to join us from our forums. And they're still here, affecting the balance of blobpower ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5562	Posted - 2015.08.08 06:19:53 - [537] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And now they just straight up don't happen. Which is apparently... better? Ultimately you can only lay so much blame at the feet of CCP for that. This thread is wall-to-wall nullsec whining about how the game mechanics don't let them get the nullsec experience they want, but it just straight up does not seem like nullsec knows what it wants. CFC wax lyrical about how the new jump and sov mechanics are stagnating nullsec, while at the same time telling me "we can easily get around jump fatigue and new sov, we have the numbers to ignore them." People constantly whine about the fact that jump fatigue utterly stifles the possibility of warfare on the scale of BR-5 and how the new mechanics are even more hostile to small groups, yet at the same time make out like Pandemic Legion and other groups being able to deploy carriers to anywhere in the game within 15 minutes was somehow a good thing. You say people who can't defend what they own don't deserve to own it yet you're complaining more about solo interceptors with entosis links than you are about entire fleets. You say that entosis makes the game boring yet there wasn't a day that went by before Aegis' release when General Discusison did not have a thread whining about the tedium of nullsec structure bashing. CCP has a habit of occasionally making utterly terrible decisions but one thing I've got to say in their defence is that for the sake of Christ, they're at least trying to get you bastards out of your coalitions and fighting over nullsec again. Team 5-0 is like the goddamn giant panda breeders desperately trying to work out what ridiculous combination of aphrodisiacs, niche pornography and low-grade toxins they need to pump into your cage to get you guys to make a move on each other. They're bound to make some ****-ups because you guys are actively resisting the process. Every change CCP makes is met with universal consternation and disdain, as if CCP have no clue what they're doing - of course they don't know what they're doing, how the hell would they know if you guys keep demanding something and do nothing with the tools they try to give you? 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. I remain convinced that CCP could acquiesce to every demand a nullsec player has made since the release of Phoebe and you guys would still be sitting around wondering where the gudfites are. 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.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6749	Posted - 2015.08.08 06:52:23 - [538] - Quote This thread might as well be people trying to use a sov laser and being chased off then running elsewhere to use the sov laser. Every sovlaser cycle is equivalent to one post. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Colonel Midnight Sin Sensation 0	Posted - 2015.08.08 07:39:42 - [539] - Quote Ive been running about, capping nodes all day long for 30 days and I have a feeling I did not advance anywhere. Still at no sov, no chance of success, no options in 0.0 1) small alliances cannot hold space long enough before some ceptor fleet passes by and drives you back to square one. Which kinda forces you to join a larger alliance / coalition, which pretty much gets you back into either RUS block, Goons, Darkness, NC. or a corp which will eventually be a pet cemetery. 2) someone wrote somewhere "..if you cant fight off a ceptor fleet, you dont deserve space...". well, about a week before the fozzie horsepooppeddling, we were about to take sov in 1 system. WHOOPEEEE for us, the small guys!!! Now? We cant take **. Just run around and run and run and run. 3) running around in solo ceptors gets you killed. The only thing that seems interesting to me now is to fit out a dramiel, buff up the pod with speed boosts and run around chasing ceptors that are trying to cap nodes. 4) At this rate, I only see systems getting their iHubs to 4 in deep space regions. Now we as the small guys, can only bend over and find us a good fuckbuddy which will not us to the extreme and allow us some space in the **** of the universe. Or we keep fighting the 500+ man alliances in the vicinity of the low sec borderlands and maybe, just *** maybe, will we someday be able to fly cruiser / bc fleets and fight someplace for sov and giggles. . At this point, low / hi sec seems like better space. PS - **, Im angry!!! Aaaaaaargh!!!!
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 70	Posted - 2015.08.08 07:53:42 - [540] - Quote Super boring, i fell asleep taking nodes with my noob ship, no more big fights, and everyone with noob ship can now take system.

Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5563	Posted - 2015.08.08 08:03:25 - [541] - Quote 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. 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.
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 70	Posted - 2015.08.08 08:04:14 - [542] - Quote 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 didn't complain.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6536	Posted - 2015.08.08 08:25:21 - [543] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6749	Posted - 2015.08.08 08:37:56 - [544] - Quote Tha is what happens when you buy-in to the next jesus feature that will shake up sov you get strung up, die, get thrown into a cave and then the door is locked. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Zsha Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.08.08 09:19:46 - [545] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And now they just straight up don't happen. Which is apparently... better? Ultimately you can only lay so much blame at the feet of CCP for that. This thread is wall-to-wall nullsec whining about how the game mechanics don't let them get the nullsec experience they want, but it just straight up does not seem like nullsec knows what it wants. CFC wax lyrical about how the new jump and sov mechanics are stagnating nullsec, while at the same time telling me "we can easily get around jump fatigue and new sov, we have the numbers to ignore them." People constantly whine about the fact that jump fatigue utterly stifles the possibility of warfare on the scale of BR-5 and how the new mechanics are even more hostile to small groups, yet at the same time make out like Pandemic Legion and other groups being able to deploy carriers to anywhere in the game within 15 minutes was somehow a good thing. You say people who can't defend what they own don't deserve to own it yet you're complaining more about solo interceptors with entosis links than you are about entire fleets. You say that entosis makes the game boring yet there wasn't a day that went by before Aegis' release when General Discusison did not have a thread whining about the tedium of nullsec structure bashing. CCP has a habit of occasionally making utterly terrible decisions but one thing I've got to say in their defence is that for the sake of Christ, they're at least trying to get you bastards out of your coalitions and fighting over nullsec again. Team 5-0 is like the goddamn giant panda breeders desperately trying to work out what ridiculous combination of aphrodisiacs, niche pornography and low-grade toxins they need to pump into your cage to get you guys to make a move on each other. They're bound to make some **-ups because you guys are actively resisting the process. Every change CCP makes is met with universal consternation and disdain, as if CCP have no clue what they're doing - of course they don't know what they're doing, how the hell would they know if you guys keep demanding something and do nothing with the tools they try to give you? 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. I remain convinced that CCP could acquiesce to every demand a nullsec player has made since the release of Phoebe and you guys would still be sitting around wondering where the gudfites are. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6536	Posted - 2015.08.08 10:04:51 - [546] - 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!
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 53	Posted - 2015.08.08 10:36:26 - [547] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1007	Posted - 2015.08.08 10:53:38 - [548] - Quote There's no mechanic that can prevent people from not logging in and fighting fights they don't want. Only thing that was driving it was the fear (for the lack of better word) that other guys will come and blast something you value in your absence. And this is the problem that easier to solve without fighting as well. It looks like Aegis sov does more for people who log in for nothing but to fight - wormholers who have habit of going to null with wands, groups that control 1-2 constellations... At least episodically. Those 'winning' EVE can't be affected by any means of warfare since they mastered tool that are more powerful than any warfare. It's okay. Can't have both sandbox and lack of such entities. At least you guys found out that there are less sandboxy things to do meanwhile and have fun. LoL, Rocket League or whatever FOTM is. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 13999	Posted - 2015.08.08 10:59:52 - [549] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: Ultimately you can only lay so much blame at the feet of CCP for that. I can lay the vast majority of the blame on them for that. The buck stops with them, not the playerbase; most especially when it comes to taking feedback for upcoming changes, something they are, to be quite honest, really really bad about. Every, and I do mean every problem with the existing system was brought up shortly after the announcement of these new mechanics, and the vast majority of the issues raised were ignored, and crop up now as expected. Now, as to whether that's due to the legitimate concerns being shouted down by the "Grr" crowd such as yourself, or CCP's legendary intransigence when it comes to player feedback, or a combination of both, is up for debate. The rest of your post is just an angry rant, and I ignored it. "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.
Faenir Antollare The Idiot Kings Get Off My Lawn 387	Posted - 2015.08.08 11:03:49 - [550] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Banker of the year award, welldone. RiP BooBoo 26/7/1971 - 23/7/2014 My Lady My Love My Life My Wife

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6749	Posted - 2015.08.08 12:06:05 - [551] - Quote I like living in my home, see a bunch of interceptors who seem to enjoy picking the hardest places to hit though. It isn't as though the other side of the map isn't that far away for you interdiction nullified trolls though ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6540	Posted - 2015.08.08 13:27:43 - [552] - 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!
Loneball Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.08.08 14:24:28 - [553] - Quote The mechanics are fun. It's the player base's reluctance to lose that evaporates fights before they can begin. I think now that alot of time has passed and the internet has become more engrained in our cultures that we're all suffering from a bit of "Psycho Fatigue". So many borderline spectrum better-than-alls creating an overall negative experience that the norms don't want to play their little games.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6749	Posted - 2015.08.08 14:44:10 - [554] - Quote Loneball wrote: I think now that alot of time has passed and the internet has become more engrained in our cultures that we're all suffering from a bit of "Psycho Fatigue". So many borderline spectrum better-than-alls creating an overall negative experience that the norms don't want to play their little games. Yeah I have to wait out my timer cooldown before I can go psycho again. Too bad I didn't train Psycho Synchronization to V ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 92	Posted - 2015.08.08 15:56:08 - [555] - Quote 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
Snowmann Arrow Industries 28	Posted - 2015.08.08 16:27:09 - [556] - 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 It seems many are refusing to play, because the don't like the fact that their big toys are not required anymore. Plus, Null Sec has been mostly blue for a lot longer than the recent Sov changes. The recent Sov changes came about because of the complaints about the previous Sov system, and the blue donut. 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. 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. I don't think this game is stagnating, I think the majority of the Sov holders leadership is stagnating. They are stagnating because they have the best gear in the game and it is getting old for them. I do not think any change in Sov mechanics will fix the issue for any extended period of time. It may make things new again for a short period of time, but that is it. Getting new blood out there and at the top would be far more effective. 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. Having less players with the best toys in the game means less people stagnating at the top. And a low barrier to entry into sov warfare means new blood out there. Cries about how hard Sov has become be dammed. Its time CCP turns Null Sec on its head, for the good of Eve Online. What is stagnating about Null Sec are those who are in control of it!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6751	Posted - 2015.08.08 17:53:15 - [557] - Quote 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. Having less players with the best toys in the game means less people stagnating at the top. Heh heh, yeah Who would be stagnating at the top with all the unique stuff? Probably mission runners in highsec who then get ganked I guess, like most officer gear... or titans that never log in... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1050	Posted - 2015.08.08 18:16:56 - [558] - 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 Hey, that was funny, and you know it.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 19:37:20 - [559] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: Ultimately you can only lay so much blame at the feet of CCP for that. I can lay the vast majority of the blame on them for that. The buck stops with them, not the playerbase; most especially when it comes to taking feedback for upcoming changes, something they are, to be quite honest, really really bad about. Every, and I do mean every problem with the existing system was brought up shortly after the announcement of these new mechanics, and the vast majority of the issues raised were ignored, and crop up now as expected. Now, as to whether that's due to the legitimate concerns being shouted down by the "Grr" crowd such as yourself, or CCP's legendary intransigence when it comes to player feedback, or a combination of both, is up for debate. The rest of your post is just an angry rant, and I ignored it. The 'problems' were framed as 'problems' by people that were not going to benefit by design from these changes, they arent problems they are solutions you just dont like them. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 19:51:00 - [560] - Quote B0RG 0VERLORD wrote: Andreus Ixiris wrote: All I'm hearing is more excuses from nullsec dwellers about how hard it is to fight things. if you don't live out in null then i think your opinion shouldn't count towards anything related to this patch,as it has no relevance to hs dwellers Thank you for putting all of nullsecs attitude into one sentence. It is precisely this type of thinking that fozziesov is attempting to fix, that only those that currently reside in nullsec should have a say in what happens there. Fozziesov is attempting to bring fresh blood into nullsec and fresh blood means they didnt come from nullsec to begin with. If anything the exact opposite should be true, Nullsec should shut its pie hole and everyone else in EVE gets to speak on the issue, since these changes were intended to benefit us and not you. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 93	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:11:05 - [561] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: 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 Hey, that was funny, and you know it. Belive it or not I do find it funny. And makes you think about adaptation like what to do next time. We did had an aeon the other day that had to jump out cos it lost all its shields vs 30 bombers. I laughed but I cried also we were sooo close
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:18:08 - [562] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:41:23 - [563] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. I have to agree completely here. The onus is no longer on us. Give us (and the attackers) an actual reason to commit, and to fight, and things might change. Until then, all they've done is change the bandage on a festering wound, without cleaning it first. Looks better, but still infected. I have heard this same sentiment repeatedly from you nullsec guys, you think that it is CCPs job to FORCE you to have fun? " the onus is no longer on us", WTF ??? If you think that CCP can force you to have fun and you are waiting for game mechanics to make that happen, you have a long wait ahead of you because ive been playing video games since pong was the big kid on the block and not a single game FORCED me to have fun, I had to make that choice myself in every game i have ever played. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:47:13 - [564] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Like I said, we're not having fun on our own and if they keep letting us come up with 'metas' we wont. We need to be forced to have fun, we need limitations. Um, CCP cannot force you to have fun, you can choose to be miserable if you want and nothing CCP can do about that except perhaps pity your poor choice. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5571	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:49:01 - [565] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: The rest of your post is just an angry rant, and I ignored it. By that measure pretty much any of the quote-unquote "feedback" you bring up could be ignored. 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.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:51:13 - [566] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Kiandoshia wrote: . We need to be forced to have fun, we need limitations. I vote the quoted sentence to be the saddest ever to be posted on these forums :( Sad, but apparently it seems a widely held belief amongst the nullsec crowd, that somehow CCP can FORCE them to have fun, which CCP cannot no matter what they do with EVE, fun is and always will be a choice, not only in EVE but in the rest of your life as well, choose fun or be miserable they are both choices but one is imminently more enjoyable. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Loneball Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:52:29 - [567] - Quote 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.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:06:23 - [568] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all It would help if they'd turn on the windshield wipers every once in a while though. It took me, ZERO game playing time to figure out what EVE was about since i read up on the game before i ever logged in the first time. Since it took me ZERO gaming time to figure out what EVE was about why is it that 10+ years into playing EVE, nullsec is apparently STILL in need of hand holding on what the f***ing game is about ? Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 407	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:14:41 - [569] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all It said : "forced to have fun." That is not ironic, it is heartbreakingly sad on a level beyond believe that gamers have succumbed to this state of mind. It is entitlement on God level. This is what happens when you leave humans to their own devices. Efficiency will always supersede fun. If you looks at nearly any game (especially mmos), early mystique and wonder pretty rapidly give way to min/maxing, theorycrafting, and in the case of Eve, metagaming on a ridiculously high level. Those who do not adopt these things, quickly find themselves in the dustbin. That's where fun in any sort of competitive game lands you. 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. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Loneball Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:19:24 - [570] - Quote word, min/maxing is good for artists. You know, artists. People really good at drawing and stuff.

Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1050	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:22:48 - [571] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all It said : "forced to have fun." That is not ironic, it is heartbreakingly sad on a level beyond believe that gamers have succumbed to this state of mind. It is entitlement on God level. This is what happens when you leave humans to their own devices. Efficiency will always supersede fun. If you looks at nearly any game (especially mmos), early mystique and wonder pretty rapidly give way to min/maxing, theorycrafting, and in the case of Eve, metagaming on a ridiculously high level. Those who do not adopt these things, quickly find themselves in the dustbin. That's where fun in any sort of competitive game lands you. 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. You ignored the part about what happens to people who put fun above efficiency. I am sure you did this, because it is undeniable. You want to see a prime example of what happens when "fun/hr" is your primary goal? Have a look at how Brave is doing these days. Turns out getting farmed to death doesn't make for compelling gameplay, no matter what you may want to tell yourself.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 408	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:22:50 - [572] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: 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. And now they just straight up don't happen. Which is apparently... better? 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. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1008	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:32:34 - [573] - Quote For the record, min/maxing can be fun, and as space nerds we know that. Until it's not, that's it... Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 408	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:44:56 - [574] - Quote lucas kell wrote: 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. Sigh....... Again CCP cannot force you to fight each other, nothing CCP programs into EVE can MAKE you fight. You must chose to fight and you have made it clear in a previous post that you have ZERO intention of doing so. You dont like fozziesov not because it doesnt work but because it does. You are miserable with fozziesov not because it has to be that what but because you choose to play in a fashion that makes it miserable. EVE is about choice and as a group nullsec is making the wrong one about fozziesov and suffering for it, as they should. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 408	Posted - 2015.08.08 21:54:20 - [575] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: I actually thought it was the ironic type. we need ccp's vision of nullsec to be thrust in our faces after all It said : "forced to have fun." That is not ironic, it is heartbreakingly sad on a level beyond believe that gamers have succumbed to this state of mind. It is entitlement on God level. This is what happens when you leave humans to their own devices. Efficiency will always supersede fun. If you looks at nearly any game (especially mmos), early mystique and wonder pretty rapidly give way to min/maxing, theorycrafting, and in the case of Eve, metagaming on a ridiculously high level. Those who do not adopt these things, quickly find themselves in the dustbin. That's where fun in any sort of competitive game lands you. 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. You ignored the part about what happens to people who put fun above efficiency. I am sure you did this, because it is undeniable. You want to see a prime example of what happens when "fun/hr" is your primary goal? Have a look at how Brave is doing these days. Turns out getting farmed to death doesn't make for compelling gameplay, no matter what you may want to tell yourself. Then you admit that the reason you are not having fun is your own (poor) choice, great we agree. I have a great time everyday, you are choosing to be miserable, i prefer my choice and you just endure yours. Which one of us is really winning EVE, id have to say me because im enjoying myself and you are not by your own admission. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1050	Posted - 2015.08.08 22:29:30 - [576] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Then you admit that the reason you are not having fun is your own (poor) choice, great we agree. I have a great time everyday, you are choosing to be miserable, i enjoy my choice and you just endure yours. Which one of us is really winning EVE, id have to say me because im enjoying myself and you are not by your own admission. There is no more bitter pill to swallow than the one you made yourself. Who's miserable? Eve actually happens to have facilitated the only reason I am still around (being in alliance with the people I play with). I spend far more time on Mumble, Jabber, and forums than actually playing Eve, so if CCP continues to ** it up, I'm sure we'll all find another home elsewhere. But, until then, we'll keep pointing out their ** design choices as they are made, and hope that they knock it off at some point.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6753	Posted - 2015.08.08 22:45:04 - [577] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Turns out getting farmed to death doesn't make for compelling gameplay, no matter what you may want to tell yourself. Get massadeath to write you a victory narrative and keep it up years and several membership changes later ... it works. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2324	Posted - 2015.08.08 22:47:03 - [578] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Kiandoshia wrote: Like I said, we're not having fun on our own and if they keep letting us come up with 'metas' we wont. We need to be forced to have fun, we need limitations. Um, CCP cannot force you to have fun, you can choose to be miserable if you want and nothing CCP can do about that except perhaps pity your poor choice. Of course they can. They make this game. They can make all ship classes relevant, they can make all ship types relevant and all weapons viable and all choices of ammo have some kind of point. They are the god in the sky that can change everything and tweak all the numbers and force us to do anything.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6540	Posted - 2015.08.08 23:30:30 - [579] - 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 - [580] - 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!

Drachiel Mercury LLC 37	Posted - 2015.08.08 23:46:17 - [581] - Quote 10mn Svipuls are metagame enough without being awesome at tossing from 150KM away going sonic hedgehog fast.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6540	Posted - 2015.08.08 23:48:51 - [582] - 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 - [583] - 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!
Loneball Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:21:48 - [584] - Quote OK so you know what you want. Tell me a specific system that will motivate you to fight every possible fight.
Removal Tool ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 25	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:26:35 - [585] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: boring as sin I've always found sin to be quite exciting, but yes, using a sov laser is boring as ****.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6540	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:27:26 - [586] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1229	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:34:59 - [587] - Quote 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. ------------
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6754	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:35:52 - [588] - Quote We're being invaded by moa! Winter has arrived in deklein~~ ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6540	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:43:41 - [589] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6756	Posted - 2015.08.09 02:46:25 - [590] - Quote A bunch of small groups -did- become pets of that one coalition that existed to destroy us. Sadly, it seems they were destroyed instead... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2688	Posted - 2015.08.09 02:46:34 - [591] - Quote Unfortunately I haven't had the blessing of experiencing full blown fozziesov because: A - our blue list is bigger than I would like B - I am bad enough to play outside the vulnerability timer when any action does hit. HINT HINT NUDGE NUDGE WINK FRIKKEN WINK
Snowmann Arrow Industries 30	Posted - 2015.08.09 05:32:04 - [592] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Only stupid players would engage a significantly superior force in symmetric warfare when asymmetric means are available. Yes, you are being engaged asymmetrically. 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. In my Low Sec adventures I don't look to CCP to give me a reason to create content through direct fire. If someone appears in my space who has a standing of zero or less I just react and create the content simply because they are there. Yes, we actually create our own content with the mechanics we are given. And in the old Null Sec days when we had players engaging us asymmetrically we would chase them off and maybe get one or two them and then we formed up to fight one of our neighbors. We didn't blue the whole damn universe then complain we are bored and ask the Devs to give us a reason to fight. This attitude that CCP needs to give you a reason to go to war is simply another sign of how stagnate many of the Null Sec players have become.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6756	Posted - 2015.08.09 05:44:22 - [593] - Quote Anyway we have even more mining and ratting content pvesov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6542	Posted - 2015.08.09 09:56:34 - [594] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6756	Posted - 2015.08.09 11:10:33 - [595] - Quote It's pve content We enjoy it, ok ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 330	Posted - 2015.08.09 16:16:31 - [596] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: And now eight! Welcome, Suddenly Spaceships. Looks like Boys without pants is declining to defend their claim. OSS, MC and VEGA continue to have TCUs up. Continuing the narrative... Up to nine different alliances now. The Irukandji. took SLIP's system. And one of the MC systems is now unclaimed.
Snowmann Arrow Industries 33	Posted - 2015.08.09 17:08:55 - [597] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6545	Posted - 2015.08.09 17:26:03 - [598] - 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!
Snowmann Arrow Industries 33	Posted - 2015.08.09 21:16:02 - [599] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. I would also suggest that not everyone agrees with that, so you will never find something that satisfies all. There may be a middle ground which CCP could find, but you can't expect to please everyone. And no, current Sov holders are not the only ones who should be or are concerned with this. There are groups who like to interfere with Sov holders' claims without the desire to ever hold Sov. Their views are just as valid.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6545	Posted - 2015.08.09 22:01:32 - [600] - 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!

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6760	Posted - 2015.08.09 22:18:57 - [601] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6546	Posted - 2015.08.09 22:23:42 - [602] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 330	Posted - 2015.08.09 22:31:43 - [603] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face. I like to imagine it goes something like this: a) "Have the alliances stopped trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "No." a) "Hmm. Are the alliances pissed about trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "Yes." a) "Op success! Good job, everybody. They'll either figure out the new Aegis paradigm, or burn themselves out while banging their head against the wall over and over and over."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6760	Posted - 2015.08.09 22:33:26 - [604] - Quote Yes!! Op success!! Now for highsec's turn at magiclasers Anyway where's moa with all their bragging, did something happen, I thought they were also at the op success stage ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6547	Posted - 2015.08.10 06:46:07 - [605] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: CCP know that what they've put in doesn't do what they wanted it to do and they'll act accordingly. I thought they declared op success already... probably. Though they've made such a mess of the whole system and so shockingly missed the goals they set that I don't know how they'd even pass it off as a success with a straight face. I like to imagine it goes something like this: a) "Have the alliances stopped trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "No." a) "Hmm. Are the alliances pissed about trying to defend systems they don't use"? b) "Yes." a) "Op success! Good job, everybody. They'll either figure out the new Aegis paradigm, or burn themselves out while banging their head against the wall over and over and over." Except of course the part where alliances aren't pissed by defending systems they don't used, they're bored by defending systems the DO use. How long have you been in this thread and you still don't know what the issue is? The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all. It's not, therefore it failed. Very few people actually want to use the system because it's s boring, hence people using it the absolute bare minimum they need to. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Loneball Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2015.08.10 06:53:43 - [606] - Quote Going to be pretty sweet when everyone realizes this is the calm before the storm. People don't know what to expect yet. Everyone's sitting around waiting for someone to figure out how/what to do so they can claim that's what they were doing/saying all along. Once a great person comes along, you sheep will follow suit and begin to experience the type of adrenaline fueled space conquests not seen since wolf 359.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16854	Posted - 2015.08.10 06:54:21 - [607] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all. Citation needed. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6547	Posted - 2015.08.10 07:02:34 - [608] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: The #1 goal of fozziesov was to make the act of fighting over sov entertaining for all. Citation needed. Dev Blog. Quote: Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved This goal forms the core of what we want to accomplish with Phase Two. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5589	Posted - 2015.08.10 07:32:18 - [609] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: they're bored by defending systems the DO use "FozzieSov has made us actually have to expend effort to defend our systems!" Yes, indeed, how dare they. Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6547	Posted - 2015.08.10 07:44:47 - [610] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: they're bored by defending systems the DO use "FozzieSov has made us actually have to expend effort to defend our systems!" Yes, indeed, how dare they. It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!

Antylus Tyrell Uedama Artisan Jams 14	Posted - 2015.08.10 08:12:55 - [611] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: ]It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad. Lucas, you have said this about 100 times in this thread already, we all get that you think it is boring. Go move to a wormhole or highsec if you don't like it. The community does not agree with you, these changes are going to be great for the game. And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected.
Salvos Rhoska 1237	Posted - 2015.08.10 08:13:45 - [612] - Quote Stands to reason CCP will fine tune changes eventually. In the meantime you can attempt to create content by taking the fight to others and forcing them to defend. ------------
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6764	Posted - 2015.08.10 08:40:13 - [613] - Quote Antylus Tyrell wrote: The community does not agree with you, these changes are going to be great for the game. And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected. Op success, make sure ccp knows "the community" of GD loves it ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6547	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:08:12 - [614] - Quote Antylus Tyrell wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: ]It's not about effort, it's nearly no effort to go and damp a frigate, it's that it's insanely boring. In a game designed around the idea of conflict a system which reduces conflict is bad. Lucas, you have said this about 100 times in this thread already, we all get that you think it is boring. Go move to a wormhole or highsec if you don't like it. The community does not agree with you, these changes are going to be great for the game. And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected. What thread are you reading? Clearly the community does agree with me. Even MOA getting a CTA to come and ** up these threads hasn't produced very much opposition to the fact that the new mechanics suck. Salvos Rhoska wrote:** Stands to reason CCP will fine tune changes eventually. In the meantime you can attempt to create content by taking the fight to others and forcing them to defend. Translation "CCP can't design fun mechanics so ignore them and do what you needed to do for content under the old system". Seems like a waste of dev time if all they've managed to produce is a different reason for us to do what we did anyway. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1774	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:26:37 - [615] - Quote People keep saying it doesn't bring fights. So I have a question: Is anyone with weight to throw around actually running a campaign to contest a middleweight (or above) alliances Sov? What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking.
Salvos Rhoska 1237	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:39:30 - [616] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Stands to reason CCP will fine tune changes eventually. In the meantime you can attempt to create content by taking the fight to others and forcing them to defend. Translation "CCP can't design fun mechanics so ignore them and do what you needed to do for content under the old system". Seems like a waste of dev time if all they've managed to produce is a different reason for us to do what we did anyway. Well, yes. Thats one way to subjectively translate by adding your personal preference. If I want a translator, Ill hire one. My reading of the dev blog gives the strong impression of the direction CCP is taking through the stated numbered goals, and that this is just laying the groundwork for those. Its a system that they can more directly fine tune and add onto/subtract from, than the previous one, and that is their stated intent in the explanations of the respective goals. In the meantimetill they get around to that, yes, its pretty much business as usual. If you want fights, form up, head out and commit. ------------
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6764	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:39:47 - [617] - Quote afkalt wrote: What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. You don't have to park tanks to lay siege Just poke their fence and ring their doorbell with frigates repeatedly will get you better results ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6547	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:44:29 - [618] - Quote afkalt wrote: People keep saying it doesn't bring fights. So I have a question: Is anyone with weight to throw around actually running a campaign to contest a middleweight (or above) alliances Sov? No, because nobody with weight to throw around wants to fire mining lasers at structures. We'd rather fire mining lasers at rocks and afk rat while we gank noobs in highsec for kicks. Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. These are all problems that were predetermined long before these mechanics went live. afkalt wrote: What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. That's pretty much the bulk of the the new system, yes. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1774	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:45:14 - [619] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: afkalt wrote: What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. You don't have to park tanks to lay siege Just poke their fence and ring their doorbell with frigates repeatedly will get you better results Well you're managing just fine But my question was serious - is anyone actually meaningful of relevant contesting sov like they mean it?
Harry Forever SpaceJunkys 1245	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:47:05 - [620] - Quote Jayne Fillon wrote: I made my original post here but I thought it would be worthwhile to post this on the actual official forums. What I'm looking for is your experienced with fozziesov so far - not your opinions or feelings - but actual stories about what you've done with fozziesov to date. Good experiences, bad experiences, funny anecdotes.... please share them all. Thanks! Original Post Below: Hey everyone! The CSM just got out of a meeting with CCP Seagull, the Executive Producer of Eve Online. Although the vast vast majority of what we discussed is obviously NDA, one of things that came out of the meeting is that CCP is actively looking to tweak fozziesov, and is willing to have that change based on actual player experiences and anecdotes. So, as the CSM, we need YOU to share your anecdotes about Fozziesov! We'll be collecting them and forwarding them to CCP Seagull herself, as well as other developers. Has your small alliance been able to capture space for the first time ever? Are you playing World of Warships while AFK capping 800 command nodes? Has your corporation or alliance's playstyle been radically altered by fozziesov? We want to know these things, both positive and negative, so that we have real player's opinions and experiences. This will help give the CSM the firepower we need to enact real change and make the sov system better and more enjoyable for everyone. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer in the comment section below despite the NDA. A few extra tidbits: CCP doesn't like the term "fozziesov" which implies that this update has been a one man show. CCP Fozzie is the lead designer for Team 5-0, which is the team responsible for the sovereignty overhaul. There are 7 developers on Team 5-0, including CCP Mimic, CCP Punkturis, CCP Masterplan and CCP Lebowski. Anyway, this discussion is expected to continue into late august, and the CSM hopes to have the majority of sov's current pain points resolved by the next two patches. Help us make it happen! Edit: If you're wondering, the preferred term is "Aegis Sov" when I check the map, ships destroyed last 24 hours, its too quiet... I see big fleets jumping out every day from goonhub, but they might just serve as taxi for their fedos SpaceJunkys on YouTube - Harry Forever on the Forums

Antylus Tyrell Uedama Artisan Jams 14	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:48:13 - [621] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: What thread are you reading? Clearly the community does agree with me. Even MOA getting a CTA to come and **** up these threads hasn't produced very much opposition to the fact that the new mechanics suck. Lucas you do realize that every post made here by "Lucas Kell" is not actually a bunch of different people named lucas kell supporting your case. Its just one guy, you.... Stop wasting ccps time and get out there and defend your space. You could have repaired several nodes in the time you have taken here to make the same "its boring" post over and over.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6764	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:48:29 - [622] - Quote You siege people by ringing their doorbell until they move out But you don't move in, otherwise people will ring your doorbell until you move out Antylus Tyrell wrote: You could have repaired several nodes in the time you have taken here to make the same "its boring" post over and over. What do you think we do while shooting repair lasers at nodes? Also, what time are our structures not invulnerable afkalt wrote: But my question was serious - is anyone actually meaningful of relevant contesting sov like they mean it? And I was serious. They are, meaningful contesting is interceptors and the like ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6548	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:50:16 - [623] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: My reading of the dev blog gives the strong impression of the direction CCP is taking through the stated numbered goals, and that this is just laying the groundwork for those. My reading of the dev blog gives me the strong impression that they don't understand what players want from the game, which is why they replaced shooting with mining and it's all gone wrong. Salvos Rhoska wrote: If you want fights, form up, head out and commit. We want to achieve the best we can with whatever system is in place, and ideally we'd like that to require conflict. Since it doesn't require conflict and actually benefits us more from avoidance of the same, we have no reason to form up. Sometimes I wonder if CCPs goal is for us to all be blue. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Salvos Rhoska 1237	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:54:20 - [624] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. A fair and true enough assesment. But that is the new status quo. The risk of deployment and aggressive action is commensurate with your own system defences being more vulnerable. If you choose that it is more expedient to not deploy for this reason, then that is your choice. Its a choice, and a risk, everyone has to make for themselves. You can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the water, just means you have a very stubborn horse or its not thirsty enough yet. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6548	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:55:19 - [625] - Quote Antylus Tyrell wrote: Lucas you do realize that every post made here by "Lucas Kell" is not actually a bunch of different people named lucas kell supporting your case. Its just one guy, you.... Stop wasting ccps time and get out there and defend your space. You could have repaired several nodes in the time you have taken here to make the same "its boring" post over and over. There's plenty of people here, in other thread and in other places on the net stating the exact same thing, that nobody wants to mine structures. It's not my fault that you're so infatuated with me that you attribute every post as mine. And we are defending our space, genius. At no point have I stated "the problem with this system is that firing sensor damps is just too damn hard!". It's ludicrously easy for us to hold our space and spend even more time generating isk. The problem with that is that it causes stagnation on a greater scale than it used to. Sometimes when I read posts from people like you I wonder if your end goal is to kill off EVE altogether. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 215	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:57:23 - [626] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. A fair and true enough assesment. But that is the new status quo. The risk of deployment and aggressive action is commensurate with your own system defences being more vulnerable. If you choose that it is more expedient to not deploy for this reason, then that is your choice. Its a choice, and a risk, everyone has to make for themselves. You can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the water, just means you have a very stubborn horse or its not thirsty enough yet. Risk everything simply because you are heading out for content = not worth it. So everyone's staying put and defensing up. Except a few non-sov holders trolling around. Been around since the beginning.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6548	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:58:51 - [627] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Besides, with the jump changes a deployment means we have to leave our space with a skeleton defense and can't drop back so easily in an emergency, so the best option is simply not to deploy. A fair and true enough assesment. But that is the new status quo. The risk of deployment and aggressive action is commensurate with your own system defences being more vulnerable. If you choose that it is more expedient to not deploy for this reason, then that is your choice. Its a choice, and a risk, everyone has to make for themselves. You can bring a horse to water, but you cant make it drink. Doesnt mean there is anything wrong with the water, just means you have a very stubborn horse or its not thirsty enough yet. And if this were related to hydrating a horse, then you'd have a point. Games however can be made to require conflict. Seems like CCP have decided that conflict is bad though and thought "lets make taking sov require no conflict and make staying in your own space and just defending that far more appealing than aggressing anyone else". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Salvos Rhoska 1237	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:00:27 - [628] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: We want to achieve the best we can with whatever system is in place, and ideally we'd like that to require conflict. Since it doesn't require conflict and actually benefits us more from avoidance of the same, we have no reason to form up. Sometimes I wonder if CCPs goal is for us to all be blue. Ypur perception is that the best to do in this system is stay in your own systems answering doorbells. Fair enough, thats your choice. Conflict requires committal of force, and if you are not willing to commit your forces to aggressive action for fear of leaving other systems vulnerable, thats a choice everyone has to make same as you. Only your own risk aversion and threshold is stopping you from heading out and kicking doors in (instead of doorbelling). Its your choice. Sometimes I wonder if YOUR goal is for everyone to go blue, and that is fairly demonstrably exactly what you have been doing for quite sometime. Ypu can blame and criticise CCP for design choices, but what you do with them, is on your own recognisance and responsibility. ------------
Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 755	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:00:39 - [629] - Quote afkalt wrote: People keep saying it doesn't bring fights. So I have a question: Is anyone with weight to throw around actually running a campaign to contest a middleweight (or above) alliances Sov? What I see are a lot of people running about basically poking the fence with sticks/ringing the doorbell and running away, I'm not aware of anyone parking tanks on the lawn and laying siege to an area on a serious level. I may be wrong, which is why I am asking. The saying "art imitates life" and "the pen is mightier than the sword" is the current meta of EVE. When you're at the top you might as well be friends with the other top guys so you guys can roll in the ISK fountain while stomping on any newcomer that wants in on the party. That way you are assured you have continued dominance since the other entities that can actually screw you over are your friends and not some upstart new guy you barely know. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6765	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:00:50 - [630] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sometimes when I read posts from people like you I wonder if your end goal is to kill off EVE altogether. Just nullsec. Maybe just us. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6765	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:02:27 - [631] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Only your own risk aversion and threshold is stopping you from heading out and kicking doors in (instead of doorbelling). Its your choice. Doorbelling is how you kick doors in Sov lasers work in a certain way and using bigger ships or more sov lasers on something won't change that 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. Some people are better farmed for content, you know this~ ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 215	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:05:19 - [632] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: We want to achieve the best we can with whatever system is in place, and ideally we'd like that to require conflict. Since it doesn't require conflict and actually benefits us more from avoidance of the same, we have no reason to form up. Sometimes I wonder if CCPs goal is for us to all be blue. Ypur perception is that the best to do in this system is stay in your own systems answering doorbells. Fair enough, thats your choice. Conflict requires committal of force, and if you are not willing to commit your forces to aggressive action for fear of leaving other systems vulnerable, thats a choice everyone has to make same as you. Only your own risk aversion and threshold is stopping you from heading out and kicking doors in (instead of doorbelling). Its your choice. Sometimes I wonder if YOUR goal is for everyone to go blue, and that is fairly demonstrably exactly what you have been doing for quite sometime. Ypu can blame and criticise CCP for design choices, but what you do with them, is on your own recognisance and responsibility. Id read up on SMA, Goon, TNT, etc past history before putting a huge (and wrong) blanket claims like you are currently doing. Your ignorance of null sec is painful to watch and shows a 'grr goons' mentality that usually come from ignorant people that just join the forum-bandwagon. There's been a lot of fighting, and going for fights but with fozzie sov everyone's busy trying to catch that troll-ceptor entosis gang (or the t2 250km entosis cerberus gangs). At least before, we had pew pew sov laser bashing now you don't even have that. Been around since the beginning.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6548	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:20:42 - [633] - 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 - [634] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1238	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:23:39 - [635] - Quote CCPs goals in the dev thread are quite clear on the direction they are taking, and are a turning point in terms of what they are and how they aim to achieve those compared to before. Youndont have to like them or agree with them, but you do have to adapt (which you are). By all means, give feedback and opinions. But this ship has clearly charted a new destination and route to get there which is very different to what many players are used to thinking of EVE as. Especially key is the route away from enormous fleet battles and fragmenting sov control mechanics to include non-combat action and disperse conflict over many systems. As has been stated and corroborated throughout this thread, if you want fights, you must commit. That is the same as ever. If you think its more expedient and safe to not do so, then dont. This is the early iteration of a paradigm shift for EVE sov mechanics. Its just the imperfect and plain foundation upon which to build the rest. Changes and fine tuning will come, but the shape of the house being built is already clear from the dev blog goal blueprints. Try not to lose sight of the larger picture, and refusing to acknowledge the shape of this future will just lead to dissappointment becsuse it does not fit your personal expectations and preferences. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6548	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:29:31 - [636] - 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!
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1775	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:42:40 - [637] - Quote 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?
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 58	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:52:04 - [638] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. So how do you explain MOA taking two unused systems from TNT with 20-25 man dessy fleets?
Salvos Rhoska 1238	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:54:21 - [639] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: As above 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. 2) "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." This is a question your aggressors also have to ask themselves. As in 1), the more they commit to the aggression, the more vulnerable they are elsewhere, and furthermore they must commit sufficiently to overcome your commital to defence. Yes, its more expedient and safe to NOT aggress in light of this. This is a result primarily of player behaviour, however, and not of game mechanics. If you want a system, aggress and commit. If you are complacent and happy with what you have, dont. 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. 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. 3) ------------
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 58	Posted - 2015.08.10 11:03:36 - [640] - Quote Quote: Lucas Kell wrote : Clearly the community does agree with me. 50% of all anti Fozzie posts seem to be from you alone. Take your squealing away and I'd say more people are in favour then against.

Antylus Tyrell Uedama Artisan Jams 17	Posted - 2015.08.10 11:07:59 - [641] - Quote I love the arguement that now sov warfare is as boring as mining. Now you sit there and fire your entosis link for a long boring hour, whereas before you sat there and fired your torpedoes at a structure for a long "exciting" hour. Pray tell me how it is so very different? The only difference is that no smaller powers can compete for sov. All you people from the CFC, your issue is not with ccp or fozziesov, it is with your own moronic leadership that failed to adapt to the changing situation. I mean your leadership is so delusional that they are still trying to revive the rental system in Pure Blind of all places. I really hope you dont do the smart thing and adapt though, this thread full of your tears has been very entertaining and I am sure there are many more to come. .
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6548	Posted - 2015.08.10 11:11:39 - [642] - 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 - [643] - 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 - [644] - 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 - [645] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1239	Posted - 2015.08.10 11:52:10 - [646] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Cooperation is always preferable, that's been proven. Moreso now we can put more people in less space. 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 choicee primarily, rather than game design. 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. A substantial part of human history alone already utterly disproves that with but a moments consideration, as does the state of human interaction right now all the way from international politics, to the simplest human interaction between two individuals. Furthermore the mechanics and relations of cooperation are defined clearly by power (which I outlined as conditions for cooperation being preferable under specific conditions). The power dictates the terms, to which the less powerful comply, which forms the conditions of cooperation. In EVE sov politics, cooperation, in its many forms of essentially what amounts to bluing, are all derived from that. You agree that commitment to conflict is key to sov mechanic changes. Yet you argue cooperation is always preferable. Thisnis an irreconcilable paradox and two conflicting paradigms at work in your arguments. My argument is that cooperation is a result of expediency in the face of a greater power. If you cannot beat them, you join them. It is not "preferable", it is convenient and the best they can hope for. They would "prefer" to rip you to pieces and take from you what they want. How powerful you are independantly in relation to that other power, dictates the terms of that cooperation. 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. ------------
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5590	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:12:10 - [647] - Quote 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. 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.
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:21:12 - [648] - 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. True. And well done on taking the time to collate the figures. I was guilty of the same as Lucas in the Erotica1 debacle. This is the forum minigame, for better or worse. I think its clear to everyone what Lucas function is. But to his credit he has also been forthright by providing concrete listed points of suggestions and coherent reasoning, thereby making himself open to critique bybplacing his cards on the table. Hes been quite polite and overall the quality of discussion in this thread has been remarkable and required very little moderation. Lets try to keep it that way. ------------
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5590	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:22:21 - [649] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: True. And well done on taking the time to collate the figures. I'm quite literally an autist. Taking people up on their challenge of "well show me some concrete figures" amuses me. Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6548	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:56:45 - [650] - 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 - [651] - 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!
ArmyOfMe Hull Breach. The Brew Crew. 433	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:13:51 - [652] - Quote Well it did make me leave 0,0 so i guess it worked in one way. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5591	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:26:36 - [653] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Lucas Kell wrote: Another thread (with a list of null leaders publicly denouncing the change) Reddit equivalent of this thread There's more, just search about but these 3 are the main ones. You realise that none of this actually proves the mechanics are in any way flawed, just that nullsec dwellers don't like them, right? Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all. Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus. Andreus Ixiris > ... Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6549	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:43:37 - [654] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 38	Posted - 2015.08.10 14:03:45 - [655] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Of course they do. That's evidenced by how 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. 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. You want more fights? Have SMA set the imperium to red. I promise you will get fights.
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 14:06:23 - [656] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: As above 1)"Because you're suggesting that null players opt to play in a riskier way which takes longer and decreases their reward" We already went over the argumentative flaw of putting forth an antagonist has "suggested" something they have not. My point was that an HS freighter passing through LS for a shortcutnmakes that decision based on risk owing from time, build/skills, research on traffic vs value of cargo. 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. 2) "-áThe only time we've had any noticeable damage done to us have been when other groups have cooperated and fought against us." 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. The active concept here being they did not cooperate with you, but rather with another smaller wntity so as to conflict with your hegemony. The reason for their mutual cooperation, was refusal to cooperate with you, which resulted then in conflict. As I said, the impetus and terms for for cooperarion are defined by the highest power. If ypu cant beat them, you join them, or you join with others to beat them. Hence non-coperation with establisged powers is exactly which breeds the conflict you so paradoxically desire, except it happens, defacto, only if they do not cooperate with you (even though you paradoxically claim that cooperation is always preferred). They engage in cooperation (due to necessities of power differential) so as to CREATE CONFLICT with you, so that they dont have to cooperate with you. Whereas you engage in cooperation so as to AVOID CONFLICT by sublimating small entities into your hegemony. 3) "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." 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. The mechanics required to create conflict, will necessarily conflict with your "cooperation is preferable" ideal. This is a classic case of "you cant have your cake, and eat it (too)". 4) "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." Yes. And? Whats the problem with that? 5)"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." 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? ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6549	Posted - 2015.08.10 14:20:29 - [657] - 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 - [658] - 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!
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 5594	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:06:40 - [659] - Quote 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. 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.
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:15:26 - [660] - Quote 1) "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. Quite the opposite. We are suggesting that becomes more feasible for smaller entity incursors into YOUR space. 2) "Not really, since they received very little out of it. Had they cooperated with us they'd have achieved a lot more. False. A) They achieved conflict, which apparently the greatest power in the universe is incapable of achieving for itself, instead preferring to have outlying entities bend a knee. They gave you exactly what you wanted, the coalitioned, made conflict, and got destroyed, wherafter you insult them for even having attempted it. Amazing hubris and arrogamce. B) Again, the hypocrisy concretely demonstrated here. You claim you want conflict, but happily disparage those who provide it for not having kissed your ring instead. Your entire mentality is "join us or else", yet you cry for more conflict. As I outlined, unless the means for competition are improved for a smaller entity, you will not get the conflict you crave. 3) "-áTo 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." Its you running the game into the beach, by stonewalling necessary changes. You want conflict, but resist every attempt to include that by empowering smaller entitites whom are exactly the population that would provide it. Mechanics based dispersal of force and asymmetric aggression is key to breaking the enormous superiority of the powers that be. Its amazing how resolute you are against recognizing this simple reality. Your own arguments, ideals and lobbying are exactly what is resulting in stagnation and the death of your own enjoyment. It is the pinnacle of hubris and typical of an empire drunk with its own arrogance and power, blind to its own involvement in perpetuating its own downfall. 4) "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." Fair argument, but misdirection. LS has issues, but thats a thread full of complexity entirelybof its own. This new system does not empower large coalitions to bully people out of space anymore than the previous. All its done (lamentably) is made it possible to doorbell and annoy. But this is only the groundwork. The entirety of the impetus of change is not here yet, but is quite clearly delineated by the goal points in the dev blog. 5) "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." I think you nailed it right on the head here, but my take towards what this entails, and solutions, is different than yours. I tried to articulate this earlier, but its a unconventional way of looking at it and takes a bit of explaining. Ill try again along a different tack. -What is the primary problem of large alliances? Lack of conflict. Paradoxically a large alliance does not need or want conflict, but some of its player constituents in the game, do. Against overbearing force, as I explained earlier, cooperation and compliance is favorable to conflict. Against equal or comparable force, cooperation and non-aggression are conducive to domestic growth and development. Peace is extremely profitable in EVE. (Something to think about right there..) A large alliance inherently has the means to enforce/offer cooperation, compliance and non-aggression. Just the threat of (real and existing) force is sufficient to enact this policy. But cooperation/compliance/non-aggression is boring for the combat oriented pilots within that alliance. By enacting cooperation/compliance/non-aggression policies, you are pissing off your own combat constituency by denying them targets. CCP is not doing that (although the may be giving you, as alliance leaders, equitable cause to do so), you are. -What is the primary problem of smaller entities? Lack of opportunity to feasibly engage. Against overbearing force, they run the risk of destruction first in the invasion attempt, and even if that succeeds, therafter commensurately when the large alliance pulls its ** together and lands ontop of their aquisition with righteous vengeance. This is real risk. This is when you didnt just off a bee hive to get its honey, this is when you pissed off the entire Republic of Bears by eating their porridge, sleeping in their beds and shitting on their carpet. This side, ironically, is where the disgruntled and bored combat pilots from said large alliances above would get their full jollies and more in spades, rather than being blueballed by their own goddam leadership setting everyone around them to blue and complaining its CCPs fault. These guys are who bring the conflict. In order to do so, THEY need the incentive to choose conflict over cooperation. ------------------- ------------**

Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 60	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:15:54 - [661] - Quote 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. Max 10 nodes spawned throughout a constellation to contest is system becomes vulnerable. System status reset after a certain time if attackers don't complete the job. 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.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 39	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:19:42 - [662] - Quote 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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2108	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:36:57 - [663] - 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 really don't see a need for a reset if it never got attacked. I mean, if it got to that point, the it was never defended either. What's stopping the owner from just fanning out through the constellation and capping 10 nodes at the same time if there is no one attacking it anyway? Right now, if you can't cap 10 nodes ini a "trolled" system after the spawn rate has gone up to generate a bunch of nodes, you should probably let it go because you obviously can't defend this sov anyway.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 8986	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:42:25 - [664] - Quote Jayne Fillon wrote: What I'm looking for is your experienced with fozziesov so far - Between having my fingers in my ears and singing,"LA LA LA"', not much. Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1074	Posted - 2015.08.10 16:43:56 - [665] - 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. Amusingly enough, watching the wallet tick up is more entertaining for a lot of people than you would like to believe. The most commonly asked question I get from new players? "What's the best way to make money out here, and which ship is best for it?" Another amusing point: our most populous squad and Jabber channel are those dialed into what? Can you guess? I know you can. Here's a hint: it isn't looking for fights. This is becoming even more true, now that "Aegis Sov" is rapidly squashing the desire of most line members to go on fleets, since there's a good chance it will end with a half hour of node lasering.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6549	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:01:26 - [666] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6770	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:07:51 - [667] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Amusingly enough, watching the wallet tick up is more entertaining for a lot of people than you would like to believe. The most commonly asked question I get from new players? "What's the best way to make money out here, and which ship is best for it?" Another amusing point: our most populous squad and Jabber channel are those dialed into what? Can you guess? I know you can. Here's a hint: it isn't looking for fights. This is becoming even more true, now that "Aegis Sov" is rapidly squashing the desire of most line members to go on fleets, since there's a good chance it will end with a half hour of node lasering. Nullbears. Re-nerf anoms and ihubs ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 39	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:16:13 - [668] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Amusingly enough, watching the wallet tick up is more entertaining for a lot of people than you would like to believe. The most commonly asked question I get from new players? "What's the best way to make money out here, and which ship is best for it?" Another amusing point: our most populous squad and Jabber channel are those dialed into what? Can you guess? I know you can. Here's a hint: it isn't looking for fights. This is becoming even more true, now that "Aegis Sov" is rapidly squashing the desire of most line members to go on fleets, since there's a good chance it will end with a half hour of node lasering. Oh, I understand about ISK. I used to live in null getting 25 mil ticks. It got old very quickly. AFK ratters are to null what afk miners are to high sec.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2326	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:23:19 - [669] - 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. Nothing is crumbling. In fact, nothing is happening. It's ******* summer and Eve is more boring than it has ever been.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6771	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:42:09 - [670] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Antylus Tyrell wrote: And tears from the large empires as they slowly crumbled were expected. Nothing is crumbling. In fact, nothing is happening. It's ******* summer and Eve is more boring than it has ever been. Nah, a bunch of empires crumbled I'm sure, just that in the east your empires can have their command nodes untouched for 2 weeks as no one cares but here in the northwest moa ended our 0.0 dream ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2326	Posted - 2015.08.10 17:46:35 - [671] - Quote Stuff was crumbling a couple of months ago. Maybe CCP should announce another sov revamp every 4-6 months, so we get to play a neverending game of musical solarsystems.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1075	Posted - 2015.08.10 18:13:33 - [672] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Stuff was crumbling a couple of months ago. Maybe CCP should announce another sov revamp every 4-6 months, so we get to play a neverending game of musical solarsystems. I am pretty sure that's what Aegis would be doing, if people actually cared enough about sov to deal with this new round of...enhancements.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6550	Posted - 2015.08.10 19:32:03 - [673] - 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 - [674] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 40	Posted - 2015.08.10 19:43:50 - [675] - Quote 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.
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 20:27:40 - [676] - Quote Sov in a nutshell: Blue/rent everybody around. Non-aggress the rest. Deny your own combat pilots any targets. Blame CCP for lack of conflict. Its not CCP you should blame, its your own leadership. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6550	Posted - 2015.08.10 20:33:19 - [677] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 20:38:45 - [678] - Quote 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. Fyi the dev blog has many other goals. All of which underline in explanation that they are instituting a new paradigm into EVE, and that this is just the beginning. Nor did this "break" anything. If you want a fight, form up, ship out, and commit to an attack. That has not changed. ------------
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1076	Posted - 2015.08.10 20:44:34 - [679] - Quote Salvos Rhoska 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. Fyi the dev blog has many other goals. All of which underline in explanation that they are instituting a new paradigm into EVE, and that this is just the beginning. Nor did this "break" anything. If you want a fight, form up, ship out, and commit to an attack. That has not changed. They keep promising some carrot with all of this stick. The taste of wood is getting rather old.
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 20:49:41 - [680] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: They keep promising some carrot with all of this stick. The taste of wood is getting rather old. EDIT: ohhh, wait, I get it. Sov lasers are carrot, disguised as stick. We just have to, erm, rub off the paint or something? What stick? Are tresspassing interceptors shafting you that hard? Jesus, man. ------------

Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1077	Posted - 2015.08.10 20:53:49 - [681] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: They keep promising some carrot with all of this stick. The taste of wood is getting rather old. EDIT: ohhh, wait, I get it. Sov lasers are carrot, disguised as stick. We just have to, erm, rub off the paint or something? What stick? Are tresspassing interceptors shafting you that hard? Jesus, man. Nope. The laser/node mechanics themselves are. In all seriousness, do you have any firsthand experience with it?
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 45	Posted - 2015.08.10 21:07:40 - [682] - Quote 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.
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 21:08:29 - [683] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Nope. The laser/node mechanics themselves are. In all seriousness, do you have any firsthand experience with it? Did you prefer shooting at structure? At least its cheaper in ammo this way (for some, anyway) Yes, I have firsthand experience, before and now. If you want a real fight, its same as before. Look to your leadership instead as to why they blue all your potential targets and wont lead you to large aggressive action. Have you even read the dev blog on this? It obviates any comment I have to make. Its all there as CCPs plans and explained in detail. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6550	Posted - 2015.08.10 22:17:47 - [684] - 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!
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 115	Posted - 2015.08.10 22:42:54 - [685] - Quote Gotta love every time I check back here we have more people not in null, claiming they were at some point, telling us all to HTFU and deal with the new mechanics. When this entire post was not calling for their opinions at all, let alone their attacks upon us who are dealing with it. Fact is, by in large, it is not fun to be the defender and it's not always fun to be a serious attacker as a smaller alliance (so I've read here). It is only fun to be the troll attacker with no intentions outside of wasting players time by making them chase you or waste time capturing uncontested RF nodes. Requiring more players to entosis a structure would at least give more than 1 person some "action." At least in Dominion sov everyone got to shoot something. I and many others don't have fun orbiting a gate as a part of some massive gate camp as someone else orbits a structure with a magical laser tyvm. I have heard some horror stories out of a few CFC friends about their current activities forced or otherwise and their attitude is almost identical to our own. Very few are happy with this, and patience is wearing thin. For these reasons alone we of sov null can confidentially say this iteration of Fozzie Sov is a massive failure and needs change quick.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 827	Posted - 2015.08.10 22:44:59 - [686] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Nope. The laser/node mechanics themselves are. In all seriousness, do you have any firsthand experience with it? Did you prefer shooting at structure? At least its cheaper in ammo this way (for some, anyway) Yes, I have firsthand experience, before and now. If you want a real fight, its same as before. Look to your leadership instead as to why they blue all your potential targets and wont lead you to large aggressive action. Have you even read the dev blog on this? It obviates any comment I have to make. Its all there as CCPs plans and explained in detail. Structure shooting, all though bad for other reasons, at least made sure that the attacker was committed enough to take sov. A 'real fight' means the attacker wants a fight too, not run away in an intie as soon as someone shows up on short d-scan. Playing with **** mechanics is no fun, you crying about Space Monkeys and their NIP with Cloud Ring residents is like crying about kids not wanting to play with a cactus. If anything that is leadership steering us away from self harm, or making us not want to self harm after playing with the 'oh so wonderful Jesus mechanics'. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1080	Posted - 2015.08.10 22:47:56 - [687] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Nope. The laser/node mechanics themselves are. In all seriousness, do you have any firsthand experience with it? Did you prefer shooting at structure? At least its cheaper in ammo this way (for some, anyway) Yes, I have firsthand experience, before and now. If you want a real fight, its same as before. Look to your leadership instead as to why they blue all your potential targets and wont lead you to large aggressive action. Have you even read the dev blog on this? It obviates any comment I have to make. Its all there as CCPs plans and explained in detail. Our leadership can't make line members go on fleets that they don't want to be on. The node bullshit is killing fleet participation in ways I don't expect you to understand. Our leadership can't make FCs not make excuses for not taking out fleets. We had several who were actually enthusiastic about this system, until it turned out to be garbage. Our leadership can't stop people from running around in uncatchable fits. They can call it "guerrilla warfare" all they want. Timerboard paints a very different picture. Our leadership can't solve any of the problems with this sov iteration that are actually problems.
Salvos Rhoska 1240	Posted - 2015.08.10 23:27:28 - [688] - Quote I see Ive struck some nerves. I'm beginning to see the real issues here, at last. Its not easy being king of the sandbox, is it. This isnt actually a CCP issue at all. Their dev blog posts goals that are quite clear and coherent. They have a plan for the future. Do you? ------------
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1084	Posted - 2015.08.10 23:59:57 - [689] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: I see Ive struck some nerves. I'm beginning to see the real issues here, at last. Its not easy being king of the sandbox, is it. This isnt actually a CCP issue at all. Their dev blog states goals that are quite clear and coherent. They have a plan for the future. Do you? Oh, absolutely. Unfortunately, that plan requires people actually wanting to play Eve. If that's not in CCP's vision, then yeah, I'll just retire to Jabber, Mumble, and forums and call it a day. As I said before, I enjoy the people I play with, far more than I actually enjoy playing the game.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 828	Posted - 2015.08.11 01:16:05 - [690] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: I see Ive struck some nerves. I'm beginning to see the real issues here, at last. Its not easy being king of the sandbox, is it. This isnt actually a CCP issue at all. Their dev blog states goals that are quite clear and coherent. They have a plan for the future. Do you? 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. You seem to get most of the way through that statement, but you have selective amnesia when it comes to the part "for all the parties involved." Since it is not "enjoyable and fascinating" for most DEFENDERS in a ADM 6 system, it is most definitely a "CCP problem." The goals are quite clear and coherent, and I'm quite sure that CCP has a plan for the future. It's that the implementation of those goals has fallen quite flat, and the system, currently, is **. The only people willing to voluntarily engage with the system are trolls in interceptors playing DingDongDitch. It's not king of the sandbox, it's ** in the sandbox, and most sov holders are getting tired of scooping out the catshit you leave behind, while you laugh and go to the next system in your nigh uncatchable interceptor to do it again. That is most definitely not "enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved" gameplay. So CCPs Goal #1 is a fail. If you won't see that then your 'Grr Goons' bias is showing. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6772	Posted - 2015.08.11 01:42:52 - [691] - Quote Grr Goons, just hurry up and die to massadeath already ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6772	Posted - 2015.08.11 01:51:10 - [692] - Quote I'm on an op right now and just saw a gang of superceptors of moa just warp though a camp. Good going guys! ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Antylus Tyrell Uedama Artisan Jams 19	Posted - 2015.08.11 03:35:53 - [693] - Quote I think I am seeing the divide here, most of the established sov entities are used to using their sov to plex their accounts. And they resent anything that would interfere with that. Hence the hatred of MOA and its tendency to drop on ratting ships, and explains the hatred of fozziesov. They actually have to do something now. I hate ratting, I find it boring so i don't do it. If you find defending your space boring the solution is simple, don't do it. It is not expensive to pay for a sub, spend your time in eve doing things you find fun rather than worrying about buying a plex or keeping your coalitions flag over some system you never even visit.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6773	Posted - 2015.08.11 04:03:33 - [694] - Quote Yeah, moa is killing us out here~~~ Should've become a renter out east where their sov command nodes are left vulnerable for 2 weeks ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6773	Posted - 2015.08.11 04:32:22 - [695] - Quote The whole "we (someone else that is, so I guess now it's moa) is taking them down, we (someone else that is) are winning and the evil empire will fall while we (the people who can't be bothered to do anything) are winning to our (someone else that is) efforts at last!" syndrome ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Loneball Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2015.08.11 04:34:12 - [696] - Quote the ol' double post proving how unaffected I am routine Lets see how this plays out cotton
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 303	Posted - 2015.08.11 04:49:38 - [697] - Quote I'm having an alright time with it, but it can get really tedious sometimes. Like when we go to hit an enemy's system nodes in force, they almost always show up. We get lots of fights out of them. But then at home we need to deal with trolls running our nodes and disrupting stuff in our home systems, and it's boring as hell to have to deal with all the nodes all the time. Like, they don't even fight us, they just warp away before we can catch them. Then they go to a different system, run nodes there, or just log off until you forget they exist, log back on, and keep going at it. We can't ignore them, because our systems will get super vulnerable if we do, and that'll lead to the enemy attacking us, but dealing with these assholes is a major pain. I'll say this: Fozzie Sov has definitely gotten us a lot more pvp since it's been implemented. Black Rise has never been more crowded.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 828	Posted - 2015.08.11 06:17:07 - [698] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I'm having an alright time with it, but it can get really tedious sometimes. Like when we go to hit an enemy's system nodes in force, they almost always show up. We get lots of fights out of them. But then at home we need to deal with trolls running our nodes and disrupting stuff in our home systems, and it's boring as hell to have to deal with all the nodes all the time. Like, they don't even fight us, they just warp away before we can catch them. Then they go to a different system, run nodes there, or just log off until you forget they exist, log back on, and keep going at it. We can't ignore them, because our systems will get super vulnerable if we do, and that'll lead to the enemy attacking us, but dealing with these assholes is a major pain. I'll say this: Fozzie Sov has definitely gotten us a lot more pvp since it's been implemented. Black Rise has never been more crowded. But...but, according to MoA, you should be happy. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Sit and guard your structures if you want to keep your space, also send out and conquer other peoples sov, that should make you happy abbou...oh wait you are already doing that, and it still is tedious? Well obviously you are a Goon shill, and anything you say should be ignored as it doesn't jibe with MoA, NPC null corps, and NPC corp alts, narrative, they all love fozziesov, as it will bring down the Goon Empire, just wait and see. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6551	Posted - 2015.08.11 06:59:03 - [699] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6773	Posted - 2015.08.11 07:31:23 - [700] - Quote It's telling that small fry like me are posting everywhere on this eveoGD-quality forum ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 894	Posted - 2015.08.11 07:52:18 - [701] - Quote It's a massive ******* failure, is what it is. Aside from POS shoots, only guerrilla tactics are valid in this environment and most of this time is spent traveling between nodes, or orbiting them with an entosis link. I think mining is more fun, honestly.
mydingaling GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2015.08.11 08:33:45 - [702] - Quote 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 fck 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.
Volmyr Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 12	Posted - 2015.08.11 09:43:32 - [703] - Quote I would like to take the time to congratulate CCP on a job well done. With the changes that have been rolling out over the last year or so, many doors have opened for me. 1) I've been saving money that would've been spent on multiple accounts, it's great having that extra jingle in my pockets. 2) I've met these "roommate people" who've apparently live with me. I had my suspicions about there being "living-room lurkers" for a long time, but until now hadn't been able to confirm it. 3) I've started going to the gym again. It's been quite a while since I've played the game "Pick Up Heavy **** and Put It Back Down" but I find it strangely cathartic. 4) I've found the time to clean my room and living space (just like my hangars in game.) 5) This one is big, a second AND THIRD JOB!!! Inexplicably, I found myself with lots of free time that had once been occupied by something awesome. Awesome not being an option any longer, I have opted for more of that "pocket jingle" I had mentioned earlier. Assuming things stay as they are/progress along the course they have been over the last year, I am looking forward to the following: 1) Saving even more money on what was the subscription fees of my last 2 accounts. 2) Meet a nice girl (or a real whorish but pretty one, either will do.) 3) Based on #2 above, either start a family or spawn some illegitimate bastards. 4) Possibly cure cancer (hey, I would now have the time to go to med school so anythings possible right?) Just curious if there is a timetable (or ballpark guess even) on how long until EVE becomes free to play?
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 62	Posted - 2015.08.11 10:12:55 - [704] - Quote 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 fck 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.
mydingaling GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2015.08.11 10:18:31 - [705] - Quote 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. Other than sov the big 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. The nullified effect needs to die or have a counter. At worst make a high sp counter such as heavy dictors with t2 bubble able to interdict nullified ships. Not only are these 2 issues generally annoying as fck it makes many other ships and deployables redundant. If MOA or the likes want to do gorilla warfare that is 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 uncounterable mechanisms bypassing exactly what makes this part of the game unique. Stick your 'nullified' and npc space to highsec where that ** belongs.
mydingaling GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2015.08.11 10:19:52 - [706] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: 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. If you are going to live in 0.0 with the big boys I should be able to entosis your space and destroy your ****.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6551	Posted - 2015.08.11 11:24:48 - [707] - 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 fck 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!
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 829	Posted - 2015.08.11 13:02:27 - [708] - 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 fck 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. Defend your "living" space. and HTFU. Sauce for the goose, works just as good for the gander. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 64	Posted - 2015.08.11 13:17:37 - [709] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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 fck 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? 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.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 303	Posted - 2015.08.11 13:23:11 - [710] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I'm having an alright time with it, but it can get really tedious sometimes. Like when we go to hit an enemy's system nodes in force, they almost always show up. We get lots of fights out of them. But then at home we need to deal with trolls running our nodes and disrupting stuff in our home systems, and it's boring as hell to have to deal with all the nodes all the time. Like, they don't even fight us, they just warp away before we can catch them. Then they go to a different system, run nodes there, or just log off until you forget they exist, log back on, and keep going at it. We can't ignore them, because our systems will get super vulnerable if we do, and that'll lead to the enemy attacking us, but dealing with these assholes is a major pain. I'll say this: Fozzie Sov has definitely gotten us a lot more pvp since it's been implemented. Black Rise has never been more crowded. But...but, according to MoA, you should be happy. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Sit and guard your structures if you want to keep your space, also send out and conquer other peoples sov, that should make you happy abbou...oh wait you are already doing that, and it still is tedious? Well obviously you are a Goon shill, and anything you say should be ignored as it doesn't jibe with MoA, NPC null corps, and NPC corp alts, narrative, they all love fozziesov, as it will bring down the Goon Empire, just wait and see. To be honest, I'm fine with it. I'd like a little variation on the same old same old, but ultimately the alliances in our coalition have fun all the same, whether it's a CTA to defend our structures, a siege of our home systems, or just roaming and running some nodes.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6773	Posted - 2015.08.11 13:52:02 - [711] - Quote Just make stations destructible so we can finally all move into 5Z And Boat will ascend to become a divinity of structure destruction (sovlaser edition) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6554	Posted - 2015.08.11 14:07:19 - [712] - 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!
Philip Ogtaulmolfi We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion 17	Posted - 2015.08.11 14:31:48 - [713] - Quote In the current state of things, I think that the best course of action for Sov holders is just to drop sovereignty in the majority of systems that we hold. Just as Fozziesov pretends, we should only actively defend the systems that we really use: ratting systems, mining systems, jumbridge, etc In any given region, it would be enough to control around 20 systems strategically dispersed, with ADM 6, and the infrastructure of the rest should be dismantled. From then on it would be really easy for the defender to stop the trollceptor when she has been reinforcing the structure for 55 minutes, making it more boring for them than for the defender. The only decision left would be if we allow other entities in our region for content, or just destroy everybody that comes, preferably when they are moving the infraestructure hub.
Globby Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE. 186	Posted - 2015.08.11 14:39:56 - [714] - Quote yes, foozysov is good.. than k you for lsi tnening
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 106	Posted - 2015.08.11 14:44:18 - [715] - Quote 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. Other than sov the big 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. The nullified effect needs to die or have a counter. At worst make a high sp counter such as heavy dictors with t2 bubble able to interdict nullified ships. Not only are these 2 issues generally annoying as fck it makes many other ships and deployables redundant. If MOA or the likes want to do gorilla warfare that is 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 uncounterable mechanisms bypassing exactly what makes this part of the game unique. Stick your 'nullified' and npc space to highsec where that ** belongs. Translation. After many operations over several years, we the CFC have been unable to remove MOA from Pure Blind. MOA continues to terrorise our 50000 members coalition just with 1300 member alliance. Can you please give us the option now so that we the CFC can have an I win button vs MOA just by purelly using our numbers. I the CFC dont care about the game or guerilla warfare. All I want is to be able to kick MOA from Pure Blind even if it destroys the game. On a more serious side. I dont know if this is laughable or a worry that eve's culture has evolved into a whine/spineless players that now openly ask CCP to help them remove a very small adversary.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1090	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:04:20 - [716] - Quote Icycle 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. Other than sov the big 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. The nullified effect needs to die or have a counter. At worst make a high sp counter such as heavy dictors with t2 bubble able to interdict nullified ships. Not only are these 2 issues generally annoying as fck it makes many other ships and deployables redundant. If MOA or the likes want to do gorilla warfare that is 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 uncounterable mechanisms bypassing exactly what makes this part of the game unique. Stick your 'nullified' and npc space to highsec where that ** belongs. Translation. After many operations over several years, we the CFC have been unable to remove MOA from Pure Blind. MOA continues to terrorise our 50000 members coalition just with 1300 member alliance. Can you please give us the option now so that we the CFC can have an I win button vs MOA just by purelly using our numbers. I the CFC dont care about the game or guerilla warfare. All I want is to be able to kick MOA from Pure Blind even if it destroys the game. On a more serious side. I dont know if this is laughable or a worry that eve's culture has evolved into a whine/spineless players that now openly ask CCP to help them remove a very small adversary. . Is this what eve has become? Is this a new low? I know MOA is like a constant itch that CFC cant remove nor cure but seriously? Are you mad ? First, do you honestly believe that doing away with NPC stations in null would "kill the game"? Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting the idea. I just find your assertion amusing. If it was meant as an exaggerated joke, I get it. Just wanted to be sure you didn't actually believe it. To be honest, I've actually been of the mind that there should be more NPC stations, especially in areas like the drone lands. One thing I would like to see though, is the ability to disable the services in those stations. That at least puts some potential consequence to just turtling up in said stations. The only issue with that now, is that the entosis mechanics couldn't work for that, since the stations don't belong to a specific alliance.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 54	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:07:18 - [717] - Quote 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.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1090	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:10:33 - [718] - 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. 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.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 106	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:11:52 - [719] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Icycle 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. Other than sov the big 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. The nullified effect needs to die or have a counter. At worst make a high sp counter such as heavy dictors with t2 bubble able to interdict nullified ships. Not only are these 2 issues generally annoying as fck it makes many other ships and deployables redundant. If MOA or the likes want to do gorilla warfare that is 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 uncounterable mechanisms bypassing exactly what makes this part of the game unique. Stick your 'nullified' and npc space to highsec where that ** belongs. Translation. After many operations over several years, we the CFC have been unable to remove MOA from Pure Blind. MOA continues to terrorise our 50000 members coalition just with 1300 member alliance. Can you please give us the option now so that we the CFC can have an I win button vs MOA just by purelly using our numbers. I the CFC dont care about the game or guerilla warfare. All I want is to be able to kick MOA from Pure Blind even if it destroys the game. On a more serious side. I dont know if this is laughable or a worry that eve's culture has evolved into a whine/spineless players that now openly ask CCP to help them remove a very small adversary. . Is this what eve has become? Is this a new low? I know MOA is like a constant itch that CFC cant remove nor cure but seriously? Are you mad ? First, do you honestly believe that doing away with NPC stations in null would "kill the game"? Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting the idea. I just find your assertion amusing. If it was meant as an exaggerated joke, I get it. Just wanted to be sure you didn't actually believe it. To be honest, I've actually been of the mind that there should be more NPC stations, especially in areas like the drone lands. One thing I would like to see though, is the ability to disable the services in those stations. That at least puts some potential consequence to just turtling up in said stations. The only issue with that now, is that the entosis mechanics couldn't work for that, since the stations don't belong to a specific alliance. I just find it amusing and woring that you want to change all this so that you can finally get rid of us. This is the sole point of it. Nothing else. I cant believe I am even see a thread where this is even concidered as a method to win vs your adversary. It baffles me, specially since I am a very old player. This is what eve has become......Or is it that the standard of recruitment has drastically fallen?
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1090	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:43:43 - [720] - Quote For me at least, it's got nothing to do with getting rid of you guys. Hell, losing two Jags on the Harpyfleet to your Cerbs the other night was actually pretty fun. Funny enough, there was no entosis garbage, nor uncatchable doctrines involved on either side of the fight. Are you seeing what the actual problem in here? It's not Goons. It's not MOA. It's this AIDS that's being passed off as a sov revamp, paired with interceptors.

Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 829	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:47:00 - [721] - Quote Icycle wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Icycle 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. Other than sov the big 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. The nullified effect needs to die or have a counter. At worst make a high sp counter such as heavy dictors with t2 bubble able to interdict nullified ships. Not only are these 2 issues generally annoying as fck it makes many other ships and deployables redundant. If MOA or the likes want to do gorilla warfare that is 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 uncounterable mechanisms bypassing exactly what makes this part of the game unique. Stick your 'nullified' and npc space to highsec where that ** belongs. Translation. After many operations over several years, we the CFC have been unable to remove MOA from Pure Blind. MOA continues to terrorise our 50000 members coalition just with 1300 member alliance. Can you please give us the option now so that we the CFC can have an I win button vs MOA just by purelly using our numbers. I the CFC dont care about the game or guerilla warfare. All I want is to be able to kick MOA from Pure Blind even if it destroys the game. On a more serious side. I dont know if this is laughable or a worry that eve's culture has evolved into a whine/spineless players that now openly ask CCP to help them remove a very small adversary. . Is this what eve has become? Is this a new low? I know MOA is like a constant itch that CFC cant remove nor cure but seriously? Are you mad ? First, do you honestly believe that doing away with NPC stations in null would "kill the game"? Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting the idea. I just find your assertion amusing. If it was meant as an exaggerated joke, I get it. Just wanted to be sure you didn't actually believe it. To be honest, I've actually been of the mind that there should be more NPC stations, especially in areas like the drone lands. One thing I would like to see though, is the ability to disable the services in those stations. That at least puts some potential consequence to just turtling up in said stations. The only issue with that now, is that the entosis mechanics couldn't work for that, since the stations don't belong to a specific alliance. I just find it amusing and woring that you want to change all this so that you can finally get rid of us. This is the sole point of it. Nothing else. I cant believe I am even see a thread where this is even concidered as a method to win vs your adversary. It baffles me, specially since I am a very old player. This is what eve has become......Or is it that the standard of recruitment has drastically fallen? Why should you get a free ride in unassailable stations, you should defend your home and stuff just like we do, or move to somewhere that you can more easily defend from the big bad meanies out to get little old you. Your whole argument screams with what amounts to, "Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander." "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 333	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:50:46 - [722] - Quote The changes in Yrton in Cloud Ring continue. OSS no longer have sov and J4LP have moved in, making them alliance number 9 to hold a system since Aegis Sov was implemented. (Fweddit live next door anyway, so it's no real surprise they showed up.) In the meantime, I notice SMA now hold a few system in Fountain. Hmm, trolling? Looking for BL fights? Do they wish to expand their borders? Just bored?
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 106	Posted - 2015.08.11 15:59:42 - [723] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: For me at least, it's got nothing to do with getting rid of you guys. Hell, losing two Jags on the Harpyfleet to your Cerbs the other night was actually pretty fun. Funny enough, there was no entosis garbage, nor uncatchable doctrines involved on either side of the fight. Are you seeing what the actual problem in here? It's not Goons. It's not MOA. It's this AIDS that's being passed off as a sov revamp, paired with interceptors. Oh yeah, I am sure it does nothing to do with us guys! I mean why else would you be asking for it? I mean you seem to be asking for a change to something without any clear reason to ask for...I am looking around and really strongling to find another cause for the request of this change. The only other I can think of is Black Legion and Out Of Sight how usually base themselves out of Venal. Which are big enemies also and happen to live in null NPC stations deep inside CFC space. Sorry but I just cant belive it without a reasonable explanation for this Its not part of the thread title also and yet its here. I can see a new thread been created after this with this request thought
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 333	Posted - 2015.08.11 16:05:51 - [724] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Why should you get a free ride in unassailable stations, you should defend your home and stuff just like we do, or move to somewhere that you can more easily defend from the big bad meanies out to get little old you. Your whole argument screams with what amounts to, "Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander." 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.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1091	Posted - 2015.08.11 16:09:08 - [725] - Quote Icycle wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: For me at least, it's got nothing to do with getting rid of you guys. Hell, losing two Jags on the Harpyfleet to your Cerbs the other night was actually pretty fun. Funny enough, there was no entosis garbage, nor uncatchable doctrines involved on either side of the fight. Are you seeing what the actual problem in here? It's not Goons. It's not MOA. It's this AIDS that's being passed off as a sov revamp, paired with interceptors. Oh yeah, I am sure it does nothing to do with us guys! I mean why else would you be asking for it? I mean you seem to be asking for a change to something without any clear reason to ask for...I am looking around and really strongling to find another cause for the request of this change. The only other I can think of is Black Legion and Out Of Sight how usually base themselves out of Venal. Which are big enemies also and happen to live in null NPC stations deep inside CFC space. Sorry but I just cant belive it without a reasonable explanation for this Its not part of the thread title also and yet its here. I can see a new thread been created after this with this request thought Erm, it would actually hit us when we go on deployments that rely on NPC stations at the start of the campaign. It's a change that would affect anyone who ever uses them (nearly everyone in null) and is about the only way I can think of to encourage defense of NPC null stations that are being used as staging points, instead of just docking up and spouting "lol nyanya can't get me nerds" in local.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 107	Posted - 2015.08.11 16:20:33 - [726] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Icycle wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: For me at least, it's got nothing to do with getting rid of you guys. Hell, losing two Jags on the Harpyfleet to your Cerbs the other night was actually pretty fun. Funny enough, there was no entosis garbage, nor uncatchable doctrines involved on either side of the fight. Are you seeing what the actual problem in here? It's not Goons. It's not MOA. It's this AIDS that's being passed off as a sov revamp, paired with interceptors. Oh yeah, I am sure it does nothing to do with us guys! I mean why else would you be asking for it? I mean you seem to be asking for a change to something without any clear reason to ask for...I am looking around and really strongling to find another cause for the request of this change. The only other I can think of is Black Legion and Out Of Sight how usually base themselves out of Venal. Which are big enemies also and happen to live in null NPC stations deep inside CFC space. Sorry but I just cant belive it without a reasonable explanation for this Its not part of the thread title also and yet its here. I can see a new thread been created after this with this request thought Erm, it would actually hit us when we go on deployments that rely on NPC stations at the start of the campaign. It's a change that would affect anyone who ever uses them (nearly everyone in null) and is about the only way I can think of to encourage defense of NPC null stations that are being used as staging points, instead of just docking up and spouting "lol nyanya can't get me nerds" in local. Yeah I can see that been an issue specially since you dont live in NPC regions. While your enemies do.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1092	Posted - 2015.08.11 16:27:28 - [727] - Quote You're the only ones who actively contest us while living permanently in NPC null. The others use it as a staging point at times (much like we do). As such it doesn't shock me that you wouldn't like the idea. I spent two weeks based out of an NPC null station in Curse recently, so yeah, it would affect me as well. I'm not sure what you believe, but we have SIGs all over Eve at any given time, and a lot of them base out of where? Yeah. NPC null stations.
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 107	Posted - 2015.08.11 16:30:56 - [728] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You're the only ones who actively contest us while living permanently in NPC null. The others use it as a staging point at times (much like we do). As such it doesn't shock me that you wouldn't like the idea. I spent two weeks based out of an NPC null station in Curse recently, so yeah, it would affect me as well. I'm not sure what you believe, but we have SIGs all over Eve at any given time, and a lot of them base out of where? Yeah. NPC null stations. Very easy to find out. Since this does not belong on this thread as its a completelly different topic, why dont you create a thread with your idea and post it there and lets see who like it and who dont... I still think this is outside the scope of this thread. Lets not polute this topic with this.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1092	Posted - 2015.08.11 16:33:31 - [729] - Quote Again, we agree. I'm not even sure how in the hell this topic came up, honestly. Can't be arsed to read back and find out, as it is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Jalon Sabir GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2015.08.11 16:39:29 - [730] - Quote Checking the doorbell when people keep trolling it is annoying, and sometimes you think well, why do I even have the doorbell. But I assure you, nobody is frightened of the children that are doing this doorbell ringing and it is not interesting, give it a while, and the "aggressors" will get bored of this too. Make them bring something big to the door and this will be a workable if still flawed system. Noone minds when people bring a gang or fleet into our space, that's fun, but a single interceptor that runs away...come on.

Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 829	Posted - 2015.08.11 17:03:31 - [731] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: Why should you get a free ride in unassailable stations, you should defend your home and stuff just like we do, or move to somewhere that you can more easily defend from the big bad meanies out to get little old you. Your whole argument screams with what amounts to, "Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander." 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. I find it funny that you mention risk-reward. You hardly "risk" anything playing DingDongDitch with trollceptors, and vociferously demand to be rewarded with the fall of a huge coalition. Not to mention overplaying the 'victim' card, "Poor, plucky, little MoA, being besieged by big bad Goonswarm." You are the ones who decided to base out of where you are now. It's like you moved next door to Delta Tau Chi Fraternity House, and are complaining that they play loud music, throw wild parties, and constantly trample on your petunias. Sure you like to roll the drunkards next door for their pocket money, but your petunias. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 333	Posted - 2015.08.11 17:36:51 - [732] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: 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. I find it funny that you mention risk-reward. You hardly "risk" anything playing DingDongDitch with trollceptors, and vociferously demand to be rewarded with the fall of a huge coalition. Not to mention overplaying the 'victim' card, "Poor, plucky, little [insert irrelevant entity here], being besieged by big bad Goonswarm." You are the ones who decided to base out of where you are now. It's like you moved next door to Delta Tau Chi Fraternity House, and are complaining that they play loud music, throw wild parties, and constantly trample on your petunias. Sure you like to roll the drunkards next door for their pocket money, but your poor petunias. I think you have me confused with somebody else. I am not associated with MOA, who I think you're addressing your points at. I'm simply explaining the costs and benefits of NPC null, specifically Syndicate, since that's where I and my fleetmates the CAS Combat Guild live. To reiterate, yes, as you say there's hardly any risk in terms of losing our station, and commensurate with that there's little reward in terms of ISK. For the record, in case you're curious, I couldn't troll sov even if I wanted to - I'm still in my starter corp after all. Except for a few alts some of us have placed in an alliance, that's true of most of us in fact.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2333	Posted - 2015.08.11 19:30:03 - [733] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Sov in a nutshell: Blue/rent everybody around. Non-aggress the rest. Deny your own combat pilots any targets. Blame CCP for lack of conflict. Its not CCP you should blame, its your own leadership. It's in CCP's power to break it all, if they really wanted =x
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 524	Posted - 2015.08.11 19:31:54 - [734] - Quote 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. Given the size of the map and the reduced jump ranges as well as the reduced wormhole connections to null, null becomes the absolute antithesis of what you describe. Hisec is literally more dangerous than most player controlled null, and a large part of this is due to the absence of accessible NPC stations. If you actually want to see this 'brutal space mmo', you'd do best to encourage the addition of an un-claimable NPC station every few LY, so there's actually a place for antagonists to stage from. Compare Fountain and Delve to any given other region of Sov-Null. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 334	Posted - 2015.08.11 19:58:26 - [735] - Quote As far as I'm aware, the probe Circadian Seekers use is an Entosis Link. Pre-Aegis, Seekers were Entosing all sorts of objects, including capsuleer ships. Have they been observed Entosing any sov structures recently? If they have, I assume it's been to no effect since nobody has reported anything, but it'd be interesting if they joined sov warfare. Especially if Drifters started Entosing sov structures. Talk about making Supers relevant again, since subcaps are one-shotted by Drifters. :)
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1094	Posted - 2015.08.11 20:09:04 - [736] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: As far as I'm aware, the probe Circadian Seekers use is an Entosis Link. Pre-Aegis, Seekers were Entosing all sorts of objects, including capsuleer ships. Have they been observed Entosing any sov structures recently? If they have, I assume it's been to no effect since nobody has reported anything, but it'd be interesting if they joined sov warfare. Especially if Drifters started Entosing sov structures. Talk about making Supers relevant again, since subcaps are one-shotted by Drifters. :) People would just cry that it was a nerf to everyone but The Imperium, PL, and NC. Oh, and the fact that it's a pretty terrible idea.
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 128	Posted - 2015.08.11 20:16:03 - [737] - Quote My experience so far is that large scale engagements are no longer a regular thing, which is sad. I'd rather have superpowers that can steamroll regions in a day and rental empires than no fights at all, or small engagements with frigs >_> As someone put it on reddit: working as intended.
Apollo Sci Stringent Method Mordus Angels 1	Posted - 2015.08.11 20:21:42 - [738] - Quote Speaking as a newcomer to null-sec, this change makes sense to me. While it's clear to see that my alliance and CFC are currently in a bit of a flame war, there are no issues with the intended goal of the new system. There are only slight tweaks to be made that make the gameplay slightly more fun while achieving the same result. What I've notice is that the only systems that are regularly populated are border systems with gate camps, systems with stations, and systems with good ratting possibilities. For the most part null-sec feels incredibly empty. What I believe CPP is going for here is to give some power to the smaller organizations on the border of large alliance space. And why shouldn't that be the case? If it is very taxing and boring for an alliance to re-take their border systems, and they don't really use them anyway, why should we feel bad for them that they are having no fun defending them? The mechanics of this game should not defend the status quo. Concerning the trollceptor: I think this provides a valid roll for a ship type that is usually relegated to scouting and pointing a target. I'm not so sure an uncatchable/unkillable ship is best for gameplay but I don't fully agree with a PG increase on entosis module to prevent this ship from being used this way. Perhaps aa auto targeting gun on the entosis-able structures that only does enough damage to slowly break a small ships tank that would force new tactics. Such as, bring multiple ceptors to switch out of aggro. Or bringing a bigger ship capable of tanking it. However, I do not think complaining that the ceptor just gets away unscathed is a valid concern. If you do not have a big enough presence in a system to prevent the entosis of your structures, then you simply do not have any control over this space. It's not yours except in name. I think it's important to separate the cries of the large alliances who want to keep what they see as theirs from the people who actually understand a tactic like an uncatchable ship is no fun. There's no shortage of propaganda from all sides. This is a polarizing change but I think it takes adequate FIRST steps to shake up a stale system.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 55	Posted - 2015.08.11 21:27:10 - [739] - Quote 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6555	Posted - 2015.08.11 21:50:33 - [740] - 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 - [741] - 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 - [742] - 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!
Jayne Fillon 759	Posted - 2015.08.11 22:51:55 - [743] - Quote Okay, I'm done collecting feedback. Thank you for those who provided anecdotes and didn't just sperge all over the thread. If you want to keep discussing this, go nuts, I can't and wouldn't stop you even if I could - but I'm not reading any more about this topic because I'm afraid it might cause me to spoon my eyes out. I like my eyes. Oh, and if you post feedback past this point, it'll have missed the point where I actually record it and submit it to CCP, so there's that, too. Carry on. Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6776	Posted - 2015.08.12 01:05:01 - [744] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. It's ok though since they can stage in Torrinos (highsec) and then attack EC- (sov nullsec we own, right next door) with their interceptors. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Jalon Sabir GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.08.12 01:51:01 - [745] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. It's ok though since they can stage in Torrinos (highsec) and then attack EC- (sov nullsec we own, right next door) with their interceptors. Bro! Opsec!
Snowmann Arrow Industries 35	Posted - 2015.08.12 07:44:59 - [746] - 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. This may be of interest.
Mephiztopheleze Republic University Minmatar Republic 122	Posted - 2015.08.12 07:58:50 - [747] - Quote Being an AUTZ player in an Alliance set for EUTZ vulnerability, FozzieSov doesn't really 'exist' in any meaningful way unless I log on during EUTZ prime. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze
Anize Oramara Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 293	Posted - 2015.08.12 10:27:08 - [748] - Quote That's a lot of salt for one little ole thread. Warms the heart it does.
Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 10:37:18 - [749] - Quote Anize Oramara wrote: That's a lot of salt for one little ole thread. Warms the heart it does. Salty Vets! Its the new flavor! ---que jingle--- "Saltyyyy VeeeeETS! ding ding The taste of tears in your mouuth!" This thread contains 20% of RDA. (Also try our Sweet, Bitter, Sour and Umami varieties! Available from all well stocked GD threads near you.) ------------*
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2694	Posted - 2015.08.12 10:53:35 - [750] - Quote Jayne Fillon wrote: but I'm not reading any more about this topic because I'm afraid it might cause me to spoon my eyes out. I like my eyes. You should get some tips from greyscale

Hidioscious Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises 3	Posted - 2015.08.12 10:58:42 - [751] - Quote Well I would like to thank CCP for screwing up AU TZ gameplay. Because we did not have it bad enough before, now that EVERYONE sets timers for anything BUT AU TZ, we have so much to do we do not know where to go first .... But we will talk to them about it come EDU. My suggestion is to make entosis lasers only fit on supers. Supers hardly have anything to do now. By use of supers, you need to put support fleets in as well. Hence the commitment for a fight that can be answered. Also in regard to NPC 0.0 people. Make stations prone to shut down. That way they will have to fight if they want to play. No running away. If a force attacks a station, people in station have to defend it. While station can not be lost, make the shutdown last for couple of hours or so. I know not many people will like these suggestions, but they make sense. Risk vs reward. You can not poke a bear with no possibility of retaliation. Makes no sense. And I guarantee all the npc 0.0 people that they will have so many fights on their hands if this is ever implemented that they truly will not know what to do with all the content.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6777	Posted - 2015.08.12 16:59:02 - [752] - Quote Hidioscious wrote: And I guarantee all the npc 0.0 people that they will have so many fights on their hands if this is ever implemented that they truly will not know what to do with all the content. Well, let's hear what the experts from moa think about this ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
John Wolfcastle Galactic Cargo Inc. Crying Clowns Foundation 2	Posted - 2015.08.12 17:57:51 - [753] - Quote Hidioscious wrote: My suggestion is to make entosis lasers only fit on supers. Supers hardly have anything to do now. By use of supers, you need to put support fleets in as well. Hence the commitment for a fight that can be answered. 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. Making it only fitable on supers would, in case I am right with the idea of "giving smaller entity more chances", hold small entities away from nullsec. I don't even know how much such a thing would cost . 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?). TL;DR: I like new system, it needs balancing here and there, people need to adjust to new mechanic and find new ways to break it.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6557	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:24:47 - [754] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:31:16 - [755] - Quote 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? ------------
John Wolfcastle Galactic Cargo Inc. Crying Clowns Foundation 2	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:35:34 - [756] - 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? watches completly confused and unsure if I stick to my initial thoughts to sov
Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:38:33 - [757] - Quote 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 He's written 109 posts out of the total of 756 in this thread (14,4%). 1/7 of this thread is written by him attacking the opinions of others. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6557	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:39:01 - [758] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:47:31 - [759] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: especially with MOA getting an official CTA to come and ** up these threads. Result is concretely instead you having singlehandedly posted 1/7 of this thread attacking and trying to spin every independent non-associated opinion aside from your own. I was merely indicating, with statistical proof, to the other poster who he is dealing with since he's come into the thread 30+ pages down the line with a valid and coherent personal opinion on the topic. And this is the second time you try to falsely threaten me with "forum features". Don't attempt it a third or I will start making use of them myself with demonstrable evidence you are persistently and deliberately threatening me. ------------**
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6557	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:57:34 - [760] - 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!

Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 19:01:43 - [761] - 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. Making it only fitable on supers would, in case I am right with the idea of "giving smaller entity more chances", hold small entities away from nullsec. I don't even know how much such a thing would cost . 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?). TL;DR: I like new system, it needs balancing here and there, people need to adjust to new mechanic and find new ways to break it. I think your view is great, and its refreshing to see a balanced perspective that tries to consider as many angles as possible on the issue. ------------
Snowmann Arrow Industries 36	Posted - 2015.08.12 19:43:17 - [762] - 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? What is more interesting is that nearly 1/3 of all posts in this thread are from two alliances that live right next door to each other. The Forum Meta in action. How does all this broad player outrage stack up against past threadnaughts? I'll let you be the judge. Note: The fact that the top poster has 14.5% of all posts in a CSM feedback thread, and his next highest supporter has 6% should tell you a lot. I would be far more impressed if the top poster had 1.45% of all posts or even 0.145% which would be something to see, well unless 1/3 of them came from the same two alliances that is.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6560	Posted - 2015.08.12 19:50:37 - [763] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 20:13:08 - [764] - Quote Snowmann 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? What is more interesting is that nearly 1/3 of all posts in this thread are from two alliances that live right next door to each other. The Forum Meta in action. How does all this broad player outrage stack up against past threadnaughts? I'll let you be the judge. Note: The fact that the top poster has 14.5% of all posts in a CSM feedback thread, and his next highest supporter has 6% should tell you a lot. I would be far more impressed if the top poster had 1.45% of all posts or even 0.145% which would be something to see, well unless 1/3 of them came from the same two alliances that is. I agree entirely. Furthermore he has now begun threatening and harassing me in mail as well as here on the board as well. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6560	Posted - 2015.08.12 20:20:54 - [765] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 20:27:30 - [766] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You have threatened me twice here and again in mail. You escalated your threatening behavior here into ingame mail harassment. I have multiple times told you to stop threatening me and trying to silence opinions just because they do not agree with yours. If you have a problem with my posts, block them. Take your own advice instead of threatening false forum violations that have not taken place in attempts to silence and censure opposition. If you have a problem with me, report me. You are the one who has been persistantly attacking other people trying to share their experiences in a CSM thread, by almost pathologically responding and attacking each and every poster who has an opinion different than yours (even going so far as to threaten and harass, as you have in my case). You've take it to such ridiculous extremes, that you are singlehandedly responsible for 1/7 of this thread. That is not discussion. That is not expressing your opinion and allowing others to express theirs. That is deliberate gish gallup and singleminded disrespect of the opinions and positions of other posters and attempt to move their posts out of view down the thread in favor of your own, knowing full well they don't have as much time as you do to spend most of their waking existance trying to force an impression of a concensus opinion where none actually exists. Its wrong. If you have a problem with me saying that, take it up with CCP or stop doing it. Perhaps after that someone else will manage to get a word in sideways past your enormous hogging of the thread. ------------
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6560	Posted - 2015.08.12 20:43:06 - [767] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1242	Posted - 2015.08.12 20:52:57 - [768] - Quote Snowmann wrote: What is more interesting is that nearly 1/3 of all posts in this thread are from two alliances that live right next door to each other. The Forum Meta in action. How does all this broad player outrage stack up against past threadnaughts? I'll let you be the judge. Note: The fact that the top poster has 14.5% of all posts in a CSM feedback thread, and his next highest supporter has 6% should tell you a lot. I would be far more impressed if the top poster had 1.45% of all posts or even 0.145% which would be something to see, well unless 1/3 of them came from the same two alliances that is. I agree entirely. And yes, this is relevant to the topic, as it gauges opinions about sov mechanics and how they have statistically been grouped and represented in this thread. Before someone attempts to claim this as offtopic, I remind you that many other posters have claimed and referred to amorphous "opinion" aggregates from unnamed reddit entries and bloggers as showing consensus on sov mechanics being "bad" for the reasons they themselves ofc obviously then specify without benefit of providing links for the readers to ascertain that for themselves. Since weight of public opinion has already used as an argument in this thread for purposes of determining whether sov mechanics work or not, even when only backed up by unsubstantiated and anectodal reference to "most reddit comments and blogs", its reasonable to then also look at the weight of public opinion here in this thread, statistically, and the who/why/what of attitudes towards sov mechanics we can determine from that. ------------
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 335	Posted - 2015.08.12 20:56:25 - [769] - Quote Yrton in Cloud Ring update - MC has reclaimed a system again. Current alliances with sov are: CYN0 MC J4LP HRTZ VEGA One system, the one formerly held by OSS for a week, remains unclaimed. Fountain update - it appears that SMA is actively defending systems they took from BL. While I can't tell from dotlan, SMA appear to be making a push to claim even more systems. BL in the meantime appear to continue to chase command nodes for systems that are used for ratting only every once in a while, if those nodes aren't actively contested.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 6240	Posted - 2015.08.12 21:53:25 - [770] - Quote Entosis'd some off topic posts. Keep it on topic and civil. Thanks guys! ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 57	Posted - 2015.08.13 14:07:23 - [771] - Quote 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.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6777	Posted - 2015.08.13 14:37:15 - [772] - Quote When were you in SMA, did you leave to join moa's crusade? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5238	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:37:18 - [773] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Entosis'd some off topic posts. Keep it on topic and civil. Thanks guys! Sov troll dealt with
Icycle Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 107	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:47:01 - [774] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: When were you in SMA, did you leave to join moa's crusade? i guess its ok whem CFC does it but not ok when MOA does it. hmmm
Valleria Darkmoon Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel 346	Posted - 2015.08.14 04:09:22 - [775] - Quote Ok, so I won't pretend to really understand what's going on here as I don't care much for Sov and have been out of game for the last 6 months. After reading the first page though and seeing how everyone was so tired of old sov and don't like new sov etc., etc. Can't we just drop sov as a thing? I understand some people want to put their name on things so fine, let the entity with the most online towers in the system have their name on it or some sort of grading systems like 3 points for a large, 2 for med and 1 for small tower, highest points gets to plant the flag. Allow people to build supers at any tower with the capability of doing so whether you hold sov or not, if the residents don't like it let THEM handle it, not the game mechanics. Allow conquered stations to have their access restricted by the owner. Otherwise null sec is effectively just low sec without gate/station guns and with allowances for bubbles/bombs and the like and distinctly lacking in FW plexes. EDIT: By all means include any other null sec mechanics other than sov I may have missed the list was not necessarily exhaustive. Whether structure bashing or PVE content is required for the maintenance of sov and while sov is a big deal the game will feel like a second job because no matter what the requirement is, the simple act of REQUIRING it will make people not want to continue in the long term. You may enjoy plexing or you may enjoy orbiting a gate if you're very strange but when you are forced to do it, it loses its appeal. If you normally PVE in null and log in feeling like you want to pick a fight tonight nothing is going to make you want to log off more than your CEO threatening to boot you from corp if you don't get into the plex op because if you go out looking for trouble you might cost the alliance sov. (Trust me something like this was attempted when I was in Heretic Army which I will not go into detail on here but it resulted in the ousting of the CEO among other things). Conversely players should not be worried that their larger scale operation might be threatened if they have to take a night off. I could be way off base here because as I said I've been away but this is just how the situation is striking me at first impressions. Never forget that the primary drive for people to log in is the content created by alliance FCs, not by forcing people to log in every day for one purpose or another. CCPs job is to throw toys into the sandbox now and then, not to tell us which toys have a minimum usage quota. The effort to keep people subscribed by forcing them to do X activity WILL get old very fast, people need to be able to log in to do what they feel like doing or they will simply lose interest. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 1411	Posted - 2015.08.14 04:56:10 - [776] - Quote I've been eating a lot of popcorn and drinking lots of whine lately. @ChainsawPlankto
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6780	Posted - 2015.08.14 05:36:32 - [777] - Quote Valleria Darkmoon wrote: I understand some people want to put their name on things so fine, let the entity with the most online towers in the system have their name on it Heh heh, this sounds pretty good, better go F&I that ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Snowmann Arrow Industries 36	Posted - 2015.08.14 05:40:10 - [778] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Valleria Darkmoon wrote: I understand some people want to put their name on things so fine, let the entity with the most online towers in the system have their name on it Heh heh, this sounds pretty good, better go F&I that Sounds like pre-Dominion Sov...
Artistul Meet The Fockers Brothers of Tangra 5	Posted - 2015.08.14 08:12:01 - [779] - Quote It was *"Let's blow some sht up !" Now it's "Let's run around like headless chickens"** Destruction turned into Tom & Jerry chasing. It's just sad.
Harry Forever SpaceJunkys 1250	Posted - 2015.08.14 09:07:44 - [780] - Quote Norris Leet wrote: Xan Auditore wrote: alpha36 wrote: Jynx Garza wrote: I have played this game off and on for years i recently came back and was getting ready to quit again then this Agis sov came into play and i like it it forces more fights for pvp and my small group can take and hold a sov with out having to have a blob of caps i notice the ones complain the most are the large alliances with systems they are not even occupying as a seasoned player of eve i believe this is one of the best additions to eve the new sov allows smaller alliances to move into null sec capture and hold space and give me more stuff to do Thank you for this awesome addition to game play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Haha what. You dont fight you run away and you havent taken any sov and never will. Is this real life? You guys literally just helped the Imperium do a sov transfer by grinding that TNT constellation, how can people be this dumb?? This article is for player feedback. It's turning into a CFC tear-bath. Why you guys so mad? This coming from the alliance that highlights the problems best. We show up in capitals, immediately after we leave you guys bring out 30 interceptors to roam Deklein. All of your Sov capture events so far have been in frigates/interceptors. meh, sad goon SpaceJunkys on YouTube - Harry Forever on the Forums

Azarath NazGhoul The Scope Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:58:31 - [781] - Quote ItGÇÖs horrible for empire builders and we(i) said so before, everyone who played in NULL could predict the outcome of this. I believe this work well for people who donGÇÖt want to work to create/maintain alliances, this system give them an option to go out and harass the big guys without committing anything (captors) But even for them this is just a short term thing. If the big guys would give up the space (as some seem to be so keen on) what would be left then? For us Vets the system is pointless, our high skilled characters are no use, we have to play 24/7 just to GÇ£notGÇ¥ fight and we cant even launch an major deployment since we have to stay close to our systems. CCP once again seem to have lost direction again, it seems like design decision is made for a game they donGÇÖt have.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 67	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:58:33 - [782] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: When were you in SMA, did you leave to join moa's crusade? A few months ago. I'm in WHs now. I was tired of being an afk ratter/F1 monkey carebear (ie, the only thing sov null is good for)
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6780	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:25:07 - [783] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: When were you in SMA, did you leave to join moa's crusade? A few months ago. I'm in WHs now. I was tired of being an afk ratter/F1 monkey carebear (ie, the only thing sov null is good for) I think SMA transferred some sov to us, so they're not holding empty spaces anymore. Also, now it is not only ratting but also mining. Also, 2fast2furious ceptorwar, no longer F1. So perhaps you should return and get a sov laser ready ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 182	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:29:44 - [784] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: This is based on my alliance's experience in Vale of the Silent. Aegis Sov requires tedious PVE grinding. It requires the defenders to stand post for hours in order to respond to someone who will most likely run away and avoid a fight, if you actually respond. The balance is off, since the offense does not really have to commit anything to the fight in order to threaten space. Grinding up defense indexes is a tedious activity. Eve players consistently complain about the boring monotony of running anomalies and mining for hours on end, but that is exactly what Aegis Sov requires. My alliance now has mandatory fleets for ratting and mining. This has been very bad for morale and has resulted in decreased numbers in corp chat and on comms. Part of this may be bitter vets being perverse: some of the same people who refuse to join mandatory ratting or mining fleets are the same folks who complained about mandatory structure grinding fleets in the past. Actual fighting under Aegis Sov thus far has been limited to the normal small gang skirmishes against the usual suspects (e.g. good PVPers like Chessur visiting through wormholes). These are the same fights we would have had before. Almost none of these fights were caused by Entosis, or even the threat of Entosis. We would have gone out to fight these people anyway, because home defense fleets are fun. There has also been a certain amount of chasing away trollceptors - who are not looking to get into a fight or even provoke a fight. They burn off at a high rate of speed as soon as you respond. In one case, someone did actually Entosis something to the point that nodes spawned. No fight came of this, since the hostiles never came back. It just turned into a waste of time as we went around looking for the nodes and turning them off without any opposition. If someone made a real push for another person's space, brute force and numbers would win the day. Aegis Sov comes down to knowledge of game mechanics and N+1, just as with Dominion Sov. I do not really have a problem with that. In a fight between two evenly-matched groups, however, content denial is still the best strategy for contesting sovereignty (just as it was with Dominion Sov). Repeated harassment, followed by blue-balling, followed my more harassment, until they just stop logging in is the order of the day. Harass the defenders by using an Entosis link somewhere in their space. In an Interceptor, you can have an alt do this while you do something else. If they respond, burn off at high speed. You literally cannot lose your interceptor if you are paying attention. If they do not respond, then you just caused them an obnoxious number of nodes to spawn. They are forced to commit several times the effort now, or risk losing something nice. If you give them the satisfaction of a fight, you are doing it wrong. That is why I believe Aegis Sov is a failure thus far, because it does not lead to more fights. Grinding up defense indexes is a tedious activity. Eve players consistently complain about the boring monotony of running anomalies and mining for hours on end, but that is exactly what Aegis Sov requires. My alliance now has mandatory fleets for ratting and mining. Or you could interact with those types that like that sort of thing and come to an agreement that they do said activities and you provide the pew pew if/when others come to shoot them. Cant blame CCP for your unwillingness to adapt. And CCP cannot do anything to stop pvp'rs running from fights where they may incur a loss. One thing I have learned about Eve. Allot of pvp'rs talk about being willing to pvp. But they leave out the part about only doing it when the win is 100% in their favor.
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 67	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:50:48 - [785] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: I think SMA transferred some sov to us, so they're not holding empty spaces anymore. Also, now it is not only ratting but also mining. Also, 2fast2furious ceptorwar, no longer F1. So perhaps you should return and get a sov laser ready Transferring sov to someone you are set blue to hardly counts as giving up space.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1116	Posted - 2015.08.14 15:15:34 - [786] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: I think SMA transferred some sov to us, so they're not holding empty spaces anymore. Also, now it is not only ratting but also mining. Also, 2fast2furious ceptorwar, no longer F1. So perhaps you should return and get a sov laser ready Transferring sov to someone you are set blue to hardly counts as giving up space. Sure it does. It means I don't get those obnoxious notifications for those systems anymore.
Cien Banchiere Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution 1	Posted - 2015.08.14 15:38:38 - [787] - Quote I can say that it's been the least active month and a half. I know the changes are still in development and the new structures will change the quality of life, probably, but our alliance half dropped to half its numbers. There are other reasons involved with that but they are still dropping. We rent and have only seen a few roaming gangs since early July. It's not terrible, and working to keep your sov is fine. I feel like everyone is looking at the short term and not what the long term changes will happen with all the adjustments to sov.
Pebble cruncher The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.14 17:17:59 - [788] - Quote Outside of the little buzz of the first week, it is now very quiet. As others mention there is now more attention put into grinding indexes to limit trolls and really avoid dealing with defense node hunt. With tweaking that part could be more bearable. Defenders - Raising the indexes needs relaxing. Industry first. Add PI activity or simply cut back the m3 requirements to put them at par with military. - Index does not maintain themselves very long. Say you would want to raise your ADM to 6 for a long weekend in another region to pew, you might currently come back with a much affected ADM. The higher it is, the longer it could take to go back down. So there is an added bonus in getting it to 6. Attackers - Some might have fun trolling but where are the fights? - Majority of fights are from "classic" sources (normal roam, WH) If I summarize my experience and thoughts on the future (even if we get tweaks); 1- Grind indexes to make the new sov system somewhat bearable. 2- Work everyday to keep them up or else the trollcepter under the bed will get you. 3- Seems to be limited inclination to relax fatigue... maybe on JB but whatch out for the unbearable power projection. 4- We wish that you do all your activities and stay in null but we will allow people to destroy your bases... but it's easy if you want to address that, simply spread your stuff all over, seed multiple citadels, keep only 2-3 ships and the rest in ISK. Basically live in your suitcases. Ohh you can leave the house and enjoy yourself..... no not really. Nullsec quality of life is being reduced every change I see and all I hear is CCP saying it's exactly what they designed. If it would at least generate more fights I would be fine with it cause we would get pew... But no. it's more work and less fun. I want an equation that increases the fun factor. The answer cannot be; go live in lowsec if you don't like where it's going. At one point you will find nobody willing to live in nullsec. What then? I hope we don't have to reach that point cause I genuingly love this game...
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 69	Posted - 2015.08.14 22:23:01 - [789] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Sure it does. It means I don't get those obnoxious notifications for those systems anymore. http://i.imgur.com/qE8ynuT.gifv
Kieron VonDeux 64	Posted - 2015.08.15 04:13:40 - [790] - Quote Artistul wrote: It was *"Let's blow some sht up !" Now it's "Let's run around like headless chickens"** Destruction turned into Tom & Jerry chasing. It's just sad. Too many complained about the HP grind and Super Cap dominance in Dominion Sov. Well, you can't please everyone can you. I think more complained about Dominion Sov than are complaining Aegis Sov though. I still remember all the focus groups at the last several Fan Fests complaining about Dom Sov. One of the biggest issues was the focus on Supers. Well they don't matter so much in Sov warfare now do they. It is interesting that its a vocal few that are complaining so much about Aegis Sov.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6788	Posted - 2015.08.15 05:43:41 - [791] - Quote It's always about the structures ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 4078	Posted - 2015.08.15 10:04:08 - [792] - Quote Just 2 ideas, FWIW: 1. Most annoying thing about trollceptors seems to be that while they're easily countered, they're hard to kill. Chasing them off is way less fun than blapping them. Biggest issue seems not their speed while on-grid (many ships can go 4-5 km/s or more), but them being uncatchable (fast align + bubble immunity) once they're able to warp off. So yeah, making entosis links unfittable on interdiction-nullified ships makes sense. Near-zero risk trolling seems off. You should at least be able to catch and kill un-tanked frigates by camping gates... 2. Defending (un-entosing) seems a boring chore. So make it easier and worthwhile: - Any ship of defending alliance can un-entose without needing an entosis link. If anyone's close by, just get in range of the thing being attacked and it works. Limited just to the first attack, not the capture event. If this makes it too easy to defend, tweak things to re-balance (e.g. decreasing the time for the attacker vs. the defender) - Defending gives you loyalty points. Player-alliance loyalty points. Each alliance can decide what you get in exchange for these LPs (ISK being the easiest reward). Yes this is taken straight from FW, because in FW it works. In FW, everybody can easily give a hand in defending systems (out of main system battles) because they just need to spend some time in whatever ship they're in at the moment (PVP's slow today? ok, I'll de-plex a bit while I'm waiting for fights) and they get a reward for doing so. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Kieron VonDeux 64	Posted - 2015.08.15 23:53:51 - [793] - Quote If is too hard to have single players Entosis Sov in defense or a group of players Entosis Command Nodes due to a failed defense, you might be trying to hold too much space. If only POS repping had been so easy after a successful defense.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6788	Posted - 2015.08.16 04:26:46 - [794] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Yes this is taken straight from FW, because in FW it works. Yeah, one could say similar things about many things in trollsov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Kieron VonDeux 65	Posted - 2015.08.16 05:59:01 - [795] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Yes this is taken straight from FW, because in FW it works. Yeah, one could say similar things about many things in trollsov I must say though, whether this version of Sov being considered troll-able or not... The Goons who many considered the kings of trolling are now crying about being trolled... Classic
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6788	Posted - 2015.08.16 06:28:51 - [796] - Quote Uh huh. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Zimmy Zeta Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 59311	Posted - 2015.08.16 07:16:06 - [797] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Uh huh ______________________________________________________ ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. . Your signature fits so perfectly right now Maybe you should add "sov" to the list. I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6790	Posted - 2015.08.16 07:17:31 - [798] - Quote Righto, and done. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap, lasersov)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6568	Posted - 2015.08.16 13:45:55 - [799] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6792	Posted - 2015.08.16 14:05:26 - [800] - Quote But don't forget that moa is dismantling us from ~Fortress 5Z~ ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap, lasersov)) tears. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. If only there was another coalition that existed to destroy them, or more legions to be paid off, or more ceptors.

Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 775	Posted - 2015.08.17 04:57:34 - [801] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Yes this is taken straight from FW, because in FW it works. Yeah, one could say similar things about many things in trollsov I must say though, whether this version of Sov being considered troll-able or not... The Goons who many considered the kings of trolling are now crying about being trolled... Classic Think of it like this: In FW if someone captures a plex we need to capture one plex to get back to square one. This is in the same system so it's basically a 1:1 ratio. Also the attacking party has a small DPS check they have to overcome to even run down the timer so the defenders have an advantage. Not so in fozzie sov. One successful entosis link will spawn TEN nodes that also has the same amount of time required to recapture as the original node spread all over an entire ******* constellation. That's like the equivalent of capturing fortress systems like Eha and Nisuwa by plexing Raihbaka and Iwosoda respectively. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6796	Posted - 2015.08.17 06:15:03 - [802] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: Kieron VonDeux wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Yes this is taken straight from FW, because in FW it works. Yeah, one could say similar things about many things in trollsov I must say though, whether this version of Sov being considered troll-able or not... The Goons who many considered the kings of trolling are now crying about being trolled... Classic Think of it like this: In FW if someone captures a plex we need to capture one plex to get back to square one. This is in the same system so it's basically a 1:1 ratio. Also the attacking party has a small DPS check they have to overcome to even run down the timer so the defenders have an advantage. Not so in fozzie sov. One successful entosis link will spawn TEN nodes that also has the same amount of time required to recapture as the original node spread all over an entire ******* constellation. That's like the equivalent of capturing fortress systems like Eha and Nisuwa by plexing Raihbaka and Iwosoda respectively. That's why I said that Fweddit was going to end up having to take leadership in these times of Factional Sov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap, lasersov)) tears. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. If only there was another coalition that existed to destroy them, or more legions to be paid off, or more ceptors.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6796	Posted - 2015.08.17 06:17:25 - [803] - Quote It's basically like this: You fight, op success You don't fight, op success You just warp off, op success You like it, op success You don't like it, op also success You get forced to mine, op success You don't mine, op success as well Troll/be trolled, op success ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap, lasersov)) tears. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. If only there was another coalition that existed to destroy them, or more legions to be paid off, or more ceptors.
Salvos Rhoska 1244	Posted - 2015.08.17 10:16:27 - [804] - Quote Ive come around to agreeing the Entosis module needs changing. Simplest solution is hard ship class restrictions, second are PG/ CPU/skill restrictions, third and most complicated is a new Entosis specific range of ships, fourth an aggregate of all the above where the efficacy of the link is dependant with all the above. Parallel changes would be requiring more (numerous and/or efficient) links as a threshold to surpass equivalence to the defence index. I dont think the interceptor ship class was ever designed or intended for this purpose, with its specific peculiarities. Its arguable whether this is now as intended, because its expected CCP was readily informed by the community beforehand this would happen, but went ahead with it anyways. One of the stated goals, was making it possible for just about anyone to conflict sov. Inline with this, it means a single player can now challenge sov. Though the intent is interesting, in practice I think its a bit unfair and lowers the bar too far in terms of commitment. It enables any single independant player too far considering how many people that disables in the system in question. The "trolling" aspect comes into effect here, when one player can disrupt the equilibrium of a larger group, with little to no risk to himself. (Which concretely represents what trolling is in any community). I dont think 1 ship should be enough to do this, unless as in option 3, its a specific Entosis ship class, or as in options 1-2 the ship class is reasonably vulnerable in its invasion attempt. Especially not in a single class of ship which really already has other design specific functions (interceptor) and is effectively immune to reprisal. The core irony here being that its exactly the interceptor class itself which should be ideal for engaging an Entosing aggressor, rather than vice versa as is now the case. Enganging and tackling an aggressor is what an interceptor does. Its a paradox that an interceptor is in and of itself now effectively un-interceptable as an entosis link. See what I mean? Opinions, bias, enlightened self-interest aside, it just doesnt make sense on an objective level, that a ship class designed for intercepting can now utilise those same capacities to be uninterceptable (except as to force it off), while doing something (Entosing) that has nothing to do with its intercepting impetus ------------
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 11:10:19 - [805] - Quote What i have seen so far the only thing trolling are some big coalitions on the forums and on reddit. The interceptors are no problem at all and easily manageable. From my experience the sovspace is changing a lot in a good way and fighting for sov got thousand times more interesting.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6800	Posted - 2015.08.17 11:47:16 - [806] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Ideally, Id like to see a range of Entosis specific class ships, which then form the foothold and "flag carriers" of an invasion attempt, with all the peculiar, diverse and specific ship traits for each race alongside that. This ofc is time consuming, expensive and rife with balance issues. So CCP, expediently, instead went with a generalisation of the module. But this has resulted, as I tried to outline above, in a perversion and abberation of the interceptor classes existing capacity and function (whether intended or not). See what I mean? Tears, right? A forum alt of some major nullsec alliance ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap, lasersov)) tears. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. If only there was another coalition that existed to destroy them, or more legions to be paid off, or more ceptors.
Salvos Rhoska 1245	Posted - 2015.08.17 12:29:22 - [807] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Tears, right? A forum alt of some major nullsec alliance I think most major nullsec alliances wouldn't touch me with a 10km pole for various reasons... Sometimes I regret using this toon to express my unpopular opinions, as its probably gonna bite me in the ass hard somewhere down the line, but its too late to change that. Reputations linger in EVE, and I hope I have not soured mine entirely. I try to be as objective and fair as possible, as I see it. Sincerely, my position is not against any power bloc, just towards promoting better discussion and a better game for everyone. As I hope was the case here. Ive changes position on trollceptors after more thought, particularly after I hit upon considering the quintessential baseline of what this ship class is intended for, which I think wasnt represented or argued specifically before in this thread. Interceptors were not designed or intended for this. I think just about everyone can agree on that for how that fact stands. ------------
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6800	Posted - 2015.08.17 12:44:44 - [808] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: As I hope was the case here. Ive changes position on trollceptors after more thought, particularly after I hit upon considering the quintessential baseline of what this ship class is intended for, which I think wasnt represented or argued specifically before in this thread. Interceptors were not designed or intended for this. I think just about everyone can agree on that for how that fact stands. Well it seems like ceptors were designed to be the go-to, all-terrain pvp platform for a post-fatigue environment. High warp speed, interdiction nullification, high-speed etc. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap, lasersov)) tears. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. If only there was another coalition that existed to destroy them, or more legions to be paid off, or more ceptors.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 464	Posted - 2015.08.17 13:00:55 - [809] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: But don't forget that moa is dismantling us from ~Fortress 5Z~ I love that the most powerful coalition in Eve has basically been forced to resort to turtling in a little corner of the map. Where's the 'We're gonna take the whole of sovnull" ethos gone? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Salvos Rhoska 1245	Posted - 2015.08.17 13:23:29 - [810] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Well it seems like ceptors were designed to be the go-to, all-terrain pvp platform for a post-fatigue environment. High warp speed, interdiction nullification, high-speed etc. Yes. And those were all fine. But not in terms of an entosis link carrier. Did I not make that clear in meticulous and specific detail above, or should I really have to c&p what Ive already said allmover again? ------------

Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 832	Posted - 2015.08.17 23:59:09 - [811] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: But don't forget that moa is dismantling us from ~Fortress 5Z~ I love that the most powerful coalition in Eve has basically been forced to resort to turtling in a little corner of the map. Where's the 'We're gonna take the whole of sovnull" ethos gone? "You can have sov, or you can have fun" -Fozzie 2015 "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Jim Khan Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.08.18 00:55:03 - [812] - Quote You wanted a recall of our experiences since Aegis Sov? Since Aegis Sov, noone comes through our WH anymore. We have to roam through nullsec to find anyone. Just found the same old alliances that have always been there. That is eve online for us now.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1132	Posted - 2015.08.18 00:58:15 - [813] - Quote Jim Khan wrote: You wanted a recall of our experiences since Aegis Sov? Since Aegis Sov, noone comes through our WH anymore. We have to roam through nullsec to find anyone. Just found the same old alliances that have always been there. That is eve online for us now. Clearly you guys are just doing it wrong. Fozziesov is shaking up nullsec guys. Just ask all of the people in lowsec.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6805	Posted - 2015.08.18 02:35:01 - [814] - Quote Jim Khan wrote: You wanted a recall of our experiences since Aegis Sov? Since Aegis Sov, noone comes through our WH anymore. We have to roam through nullsec to find anyone. Just found the same old alliances that have always been there. That is eve online for us now. Well you know, after Wormhole Gate ehhh ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap, lasersov)) tears. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. If only there was another coalition that existed to destroy them, or more legions to be paid off, or more ceptors.
Xan Auditore MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 10	Posted - 2015.08.18 11:45:58 - [815] - Quote MoA has now successfully captured 3 systems from the imps. Last night we successfully defended one system from goon invaders. The Mittiani's article : https://www.themittani.com/news/new-sov-collected-feedback states explicitly that pvp in the fozzie sov is limited mostly to interceptors. This is an outright lie. We have had more kills in the last couple weeks than we've ever had. A few days ago our alliance reached #2 on zKillboard. Look at our killboard! It is a lot more than just interceptors both wins and losses. The fact is with the new system the goon tactic of "blue balling" just doesn't work. For the first time in a long time they are being forced to undock and defend their systems and too much H1Z1 has made them rusty. This is why they are the loudest to cry about it. For the goons this is a crisis. Personally I think Fozzie Sov has been a huge success in generating content.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1037	Posted - 2015.08.18 12:15:20 - [816] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: "You can have sov, or you can have fun" -Fozzie 2015 Wasn't that a misquote by some karma-w**ring redditor? Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1822	Posted - 2015.08.18 12:17:16 - [817] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: "You can have sov, or you can have fun" -Fozzie 2015 Wasn't that a misquote by some karma-wring redditor? Yes. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3guqam/csm10_people_of_reddit_you_are_being_lied_to_endie/ Quote:** [snip] Let me deal with the first thing first. Someone malicious or stupid claimed that Fozzie said You can have sov or you can have fun. One of my fellow Goons, notorious shitposter Kcolor, promptly posted this to Reddit in search of easy upvotes. This naturally caused an uproar and whoever sells pitchforks and torches at the base of Castle CCP made an absolute killing. And quite right, too: how much disdain this shows for the playerbase! Something must be done! Who will pay for this outrage?!? Except that this never happened. My hunt for this shocking expression of disdain led me to listen to the whole two hours for a second time. Not only does Fozzie not say this, but he doesnt say anything that sounds a bit like it. Not once. [/snip]
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6568	Posted - 2015.08.18 12:49:41 - [818] - 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!
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 107	Posted - 2015.08.18 13:17:34 - [819] - Quote Seth Kanan wrote: What i have seen so far the only thing trolling are some big coalitions on the forums and on reddit. The interceptors are no problem at all and easily manageable. From my experience the sovspace is changing a lot in a good way and fighting for sov got thousand times more interesting. This ^^, particularly in this thread...hate to sound like a broken record, but the point is to think smaller... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5963555#post5963555
Xan Auditore MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 15	Posted - 2015.08.18 13:46:54 - [820] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Ha ha, tell that to the goon fleet we slaughtered when they arrived to finish their "transfer". 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. So now we have fozzie sov, which gives power to alliances that are active as opposed to just wealthy, large, and vastly inactive.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6570	Posted - 2015.08.18 14:13:04 - [821] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 77	Posted - 2015.08.18 14:34:43 - [822] - Quote 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?
Salvos Rhoska 1251	Posted - 2015.08.18 14:47:41 - [823] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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 rest of your post is granted. Yes, no coherent exstant force in the EVE universe can defend against a full "Imperium" retaliation. Yes, the changes are merely an inconvenience, and dont threaten the "Imperium" at all. Hence, lack of "gudfights", cos no one else can compare or compete. But I think this segment above of your post hit upon the truth. EVE development, as a sandbox, allowed for but never really considered the possibility of such a coherent, organised and structured force.. There was precedenct before in terms of BoB, but that was disassembled ultimately from within, not without. EVE systems did not develop congruently fast enough to allow for competition. Since then, this has immunized the community to any such revolutionary AWOX ever happening again. You've won the sandbox. The key argument of "when will a coalition organise and rise up to us" is a misdirection and fallacy. All change from CCP and all action from player base, happens now in respect of and relation to your hegemony. CCP will not upset yout status quo. Player potential is impaired by your successful programs to assimilate aggressor players, and F1 monkeys. You are your own worst enemy. Your success is your own defeat. This is a fitting crown, and all the more bitter for it. I think you, I, and everyone else, acknowledges the futility of aggressing the "Imperium". 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. Sov, and NS by extension, is a foregone situation. No real competition will ever arise, nor will CCP be able to make significant when even the exstant model of a trollceptor results i 20%+ aggregate whine, even though they are not even realistically infringing or capturing your space. This is before donsidering the unthinkable and unparalleled force you COULD bring down on any aggressing entity. Its your sandbox now. You did this. Deal with it. ------------
Xan Auditore MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 16	Posted - 2015.08.18 16:08:24 - [824] - Quote Well said. I disagree that there is nothing that can be done about the imperium however. I don't believe that they've "won eve". There are plenty of cases where small groups of rebels have overthrown larger entities. Case in point: Star Wars or The American Revolution. There is an Eve without evil overlords, burn jitas, code, etc. I will keep fighting for that Eve. Freedom is not free and independence is a luxury. Plus shooting goons is fun. Fozzie sov or not, the imperium will fall.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6572	Posted - 2015.08.18 16:13:58 - [825] - 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!
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 469	Posted - 2015.08.18 16:20:43 - [826] - Quote 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. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1626	Posted - 2015.08.18 16:37:00 - [827] - Quote For the TCU, just get rid of nodes. No one is gonna have a 4000 man dogpile over a TCU, get real. Probably for the ihub as well. Reduce nodes on station timer to like, 3-5.
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 77	Posted - 2015.08.18 16:38:57 - [828] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You don't know how many pilots you have in your own alliance? wow. 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. Again, fozziesov working as intended. Your posts here are proof of that.
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 10	Posted - 2015.08.18 16:41:06 - [829] - Quote 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 16:41:41 - [830] - 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 - [831] - 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 - [832] - 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 - [833] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 77	Posted - 2015.08.18 17:54:21 - [834] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: stuff active PvP pilots / # of systems would do. How many xed up for the last strat op? 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. 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. The only challenging places left to live are LS and WHs. Anything that tries to make HS or null more difficult is a positive. You would have fights in current sov if you un-blue a few people. That's kinda the point. You obviously disagree. Let's see how many times we can go in circles in this thread!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:09:49 - [835] - 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!
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 10	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:15:49 - [836] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Salvos Rhoska 1253	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:17:46 - [837] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: clipped for space. Some good and valid arguments there. I appreciate your candour. Sweet works better than sour, you know, for catching flies. 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. Most of your opponents want the same thing as you do. See what I mean? They may be your opponents ingame, but here, they want a solution to both your problems as much as you do. Use that. Align with them, towards that. This whole shitstorm doesnt have to be "us vs them", when both want the same. "(not that the opinions of a 2 year old NPC player mean much)" Ouch! Fair enough, considering I also called your talking head/forum rep position. I can take as good as I give, thats ok. ------------
Faenir Antollare The Idiot Kings Get Off My Lawn 387	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:22:45 - [838] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: clipped for space. Some good and valid arguments there. I appreciate your candour. Sweet works better than sour, you know, for catching flies. 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. Most of your opponents want the same thing as you do. See what I mean? They may be your opponents ingame, but here, they want a solution to both your problems as much as you do. Use that. Align with them, towards that. This whole shitstorm doesnt have to be "us vs them", when both want the same. "(not that the opinions of a 2 year old NPC player mean much)" Ouch! Fair enough, considering I also called your talking head/forum rep position. I can take as good as I give, thats ok. Did you not recently concede on all points ? RiP BooBoo 26/7/1971 - 23/7/2014 My Lady My Love My Life My Wife
Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play Black Legion. 812	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:29:34 - [839] - Quote at the very least, restricting the sov dildos to command ships or something, would help fix some issues. But overall its just un-fun. I think we want raw destruction to determine sov ownership, not some strange timer minigame "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Salvos Rhoska 1253	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:30:39 - [840] - Quote Faenir Antollare wrote: Did you not recently concede on all points ? Yes, but in another entirely unrelated thread (the one about Russians rioting). You must be more drunk than I am! cheers! ------------

Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 77	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:31:09 - [841] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: stuff 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. If you think LS is easier to live in than sov null, you've apparently never lived there. 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. More people or less systems = the same thing. More alliances/corps in null instead of blue-ing everyone around you would drive content. For the 17th time, you are causing stagnation. HTFU, change with the game or stop complaining.
Faenir Antollare The Idiot Kings Get Off My Lawn 387	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:39:29 - [842] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Faenir Antollare wrote: Did you not recently concede on all points ? Yes, but in another entirely unrelated thread (the one about Russians rioting). You must be more drunk than I am! cheers! Different titles maybe yet strikingly similar subject certainly. RiP BooBoo 26/7/1971 - 23/7/2014 My Lady My Love My Life My Wife
Salvos Rhoska 1255	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:55:10 - [843] - Quote Faenir Antollare wrote: Different titles maybe yet strikingly similar subject certainly. Quite different titles, subjects, and even moreso on my part as to the excellent post I conceeded to, in all its specific points. This is a lame attempt at generalisation, when you yourself forgot which thread you are talking about. Happens to me too, sometimes I get confused who said what and where, but I always own up to it. ------------
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 108	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:59:17 - [844] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: stuff 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. If you think LS is easier to live in than sov null, you've apparently never lived there. 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. More people or less systems = the same thing. More alliances/corps in null instead of blue-ing everyone around you would drive content. For the 17th time, you are causing stagnation. HTFU, change with the game or stop complaining. So much this^^
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:06:10 - [845] - 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 - [846] - 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!
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12133	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:14:06 - [847] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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!" Tisk Tisk, my dear Lucas Kell,. Your forum fu is weak. For were you in top form, you would have pointed out that in this case what you believe is based on FACTS and EVIDENCE where as what your opponent believes is based on VAPOR and WISHFUL THINKING ie "well, one day in the future people will escalate to caps therefore the new sov system is fine". You must return to the Mountain of General Discussion Wisdom and meditate to replenish your powers! It is then that you can come back to vanquish your foes, and by "vanquish" i mean keep posting till they die of old age... Jenn disappears in a puff of forum ninja smoke
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:20:23 - [848] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 81	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:29:02 - [849] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Rat in a PvP fit and jump over when a grey/red shows up. It isn't difficult. Quote: 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. Intel channels a few dozen systems out trump any docking mechanics. You know this as well as I do. Quote: 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. 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? Quote: 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. 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. "I want to live in the safest part of space with none of the effort that comes from defending where I chose to live" --Lucas Kell, using logic, apparently
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:42:12 - [850] - 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!

Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 81	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:52:08 - [851] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: the same old stuff For the last time, they are only boring mechanics to your currently playstyle. Adapt. Adjust. That's EVE. You purposely put channels in place that make life safe and easy. Change it to mix things up. I assume you've never docked and taken a cheaper ship out just to have a challenging fight, instead of stomping anyone who comes by too. You need to change your playstyle because the current mechanics are enjoyed by other people. You aren't a special snowflake. A compelling reason to abandon what you have is that you would get fights. You could spend time flying spaceships and shooting people instead of forum-warrior-ing complaining. And what's the big deal with shooting friends? Its all in good fun. Shoot someone one day, fleet up with them the next. As long as fun is being had, who cares? This IS a game.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:58:07 - [852] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1255	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:16:54 - [853] - Quote @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? ------------
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 81	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:26:08 - [854] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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? I saw that a while ago. To me it looks like people who would previously hide behind POS shields/dock up when local isn't blue were forced to try and engage. More content than we had before.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:31:15 - [855] - 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!
Kieron VonDeux 67	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:31:36 - [856] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: the same old stuff For the last time, they are only boring mechanics to your currently playstyle. Adapt. Adjust. That's EVE. You can't reason with the close minded. Its pretty clear throughout this thread that he will not expand his point of view. Many have expressed that this is sandbox that we have to create out own fun based upon the rules, while he only sees a theme park where it is up to CCP creating the fun. No rule set or guidelines create enjoyment on their own in a sandbox, but theme parks are designed to do just that. It appears a lot of players are having fun with the new Sov at his expense, because they know how to create the fun. Some just can't get their head around the fact that in a sandbox game it is more upon the player to create his own fun. And many are doing just that right now, at others expense. Its just, the ones who are not having the fun are those who seem to refuse to play by the new rules. They don't want to play in a game where they don't automatically have the advantage anymore and need to find new ways to regain that advantage. But that is what Eve has always been about. Every few years the game gets turned on its head and everyone needs to adjust. Some refuse to adjust and Darwinism takes over. Maybe that's why Eve is so small, but maybe that's why Eve is still around. If the Devs never turned this game on its head periodically, would this game still be around? But back to the topic at hand... Null Sec is stagnating and has been for a while. The reasons for that could be debated til the end of time, but the Devs seem to be shaking up the status quo until they can breath new life into it. The merits of the current changes can be debated til the end of time as well, but it doesn't matter. There are numerous ways of doing things and to be honest the details don't matter too much, as long as the goal of breaking the status quo is achieved. Those who refuse to change will simply cause CCP to come up with even more extreme changes to force that change that breaks up the status quo in Null Sec. Many have quite this game in the past because of changes they have disagreed with. Many will do so in the future. But this game needs to keep evolving even on the fundamental level at times, to keep it fresh for everyone. Change is good, even change you don't fully agree with. One hundred percent acceptance to any refactoring of gameplay is impossible. Adapt or die. There is a reason that has become a common saying in this game. The game must adapt as well, or it will stagnate, and die.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:35:30 - [857] - 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!
Salvos Rhoska 1255	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:48:42 - [858] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Looks like content and fights to me, de facto. Trollceptor arrives, engages Entosis, pulls out defenders and fights them (noting hes also sacrificed a high) Comparing to FW is irrelevant. No FW in null. Does not apply. Apples and oranges. 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. Also lol the moron with a Civilian AB ( but credit for trying to force him out. Misfits happen) ------------
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 11	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:59:15 - [859] - Quote Seth Kanan wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Lucas Kell wrote: 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!" 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:06:33 - [860] - 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!

ConranAntoni Empyrean Warriors Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 122	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:07:05 - [861] - Quote My experience? Mostly bad. Alliance is suffering, corp which survived ******* ages finally killed. So yeah. Thanks Fozzie. Know it's adapt or die, htfu etc but when the systems have such negative effects, you know something has gone very wrong. Empyrean Warriors - Recruiting now.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:12:19 - [862] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 82	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:13:11 - [863] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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? HS is that way --> You talk about null as building an empire. What empire in history doesn't have guards stationed at strategic assets?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:23:58 - [864] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 87	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:30:44 - [865] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Because (yet again) what you find fun isn't what everyone finds fun. Shocking. I know. You're complaining instead of adapting to something different. That in and of itself is EVE-ing wrong. You want to live somewhere that you don't have to own structures? Where you don't have to defend structures? There are places for that. It's just not null. *pats Lucas on head and gives him a cookie.
Salvos Rhoska 1256	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:35:02 - [866] - Quote This is getting pointless, circular, and regressing again to certain person spam. GL CCP. Im off to bed. ------------
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 88	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:39:35 - [867] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: This is getting pointless, circular, and regressing again to certain person spam. GL CCP. Im off to bed. 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.
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 11	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:44:08 - [868] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 22:36:23 - [869] - 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!
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 835	Posted - 2015.08.18 22:37:34 - [870] - Quote Seth Kanan wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Wow, You are just not in the same park, not even in the same city, or country, hell I don't even think you are even in the same hemisphere as the point Lucas Kell was making. Watch this. If CCP was cognizant of how to design engaging game mechanics for both sides of sovlazoring, I doubt that the majicsoventosiswand would have been able to be placed in an interceptor. Something that was almost immediately picked up on and pointed out to CCP when they announced the mechanic. Nobody enjoys trying to chase down and catch the nigh uncatchable majicsovlazor interceptor, and what's even less fun is having to un-majicsovlazor whatever you just chased him away from for 10-15 minutes. That is not difficult, that's punishing. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6573	Posted - 2015.08.18 22:38:06 - [871] - 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!
Snowmann Arrow Industries 38	Posted - 2015.08.19 00:28:11 - [872] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: This is getting pointless, circular, and regressing again to certain person spam. GL CCP. Im off to bed. 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. 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?
Akballah Kassan Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 65	Posted - 2015.08.19 00:57:26 - [873] - Quote Snowmann wrote: Sonya Corvinus wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: This is getting pointless, circular, and regressing again to certain person spam. GL CCP. Im off to bed. 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. 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? It's like Lucas is trying to 'entosis' this thread, so you're that bored you will just give up.
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 94	Posted - 2015.08.19 01:09:25 - [874] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: more stuff 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
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6811	Posted - 2015.08.19 02:59:38 - [875] - Quote Snowmann wrote: What does that say about this feedback thread on Aegis Sov? It's not worth much more than other GD threads, that's what Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6574	Posted - 2015.08.19 06:35:35 - [876] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6811	Posted - 2015.08.19 06:43:06 - [877] - Quote It's fine, even if we have 50k+ blues, it only takes 50 greys from moa to take us down. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2568	Posted - 2015.08.19 07:02:59 - [878] - Quote So far, getting blueballed just as before but now we aren't using any ammo. I haven't decided if I like it or don't. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Seth Kanan Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 11	Posted - 2015.08.19 11:17:09 - [879] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Nevertheless the iterations which were announced recently look good. I'm glad to see that they took care of the issues.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6811	Posted - 2015.08.19 12:07:14 - [880] - Quote Seth Kanan wrote: people even spread lies on reddit I'm really taken aback by this. It totally shook up ~~sov~~ my view of Reddit. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!

Anize Oramara The Arch Dashing Dashers 314	Posted - 2015.08.19 12:42:08 - [881] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Seth Kanan wrote: people even spread lies on reddit I'm really taken aback by this. It totally shook up ~~sov~~ my view of Reddit. Wait, people were lying!? On the internet!? To advance their own point of view or agenda!? And a goon is surprised by this!? Is good joke senior
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6576	Posted - 2015.08.19 12:45:29 - [882] - 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!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6811	Posted - 2015.08.19 12:48:14 - [883] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. massadeath says otherwise Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1138	Posted - 2015.08.19 13:33:17 - [884] - Quote Hmm, so max speed will now be capped on entosis ships at 4km/s, eh? Well, that should make my Orthrus a one man sov defense machine. Countering one poorly balanced ship class with a poorly balanced faction hull. This should be amusing.
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 95	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:05:05 - [885] - Quote 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.
Judge Ment BLK Industries 3	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:12:33 - [886] - Quote Oh where do I sign up for pvp?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6577	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:15:34 - [887] - 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!
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 95	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:33:07 - [888] - Quote 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6579	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:43:17 - [889] - 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!
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12137	Posted - 2015.08.19 14:52:48 - [890] - 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. Here is the underlying prejudice that prevents this poster from understanding. I'm not a member of his group. I'm fighting his group and,well, basically everyone who even passes within a light year of Curse it seems (last night, no less than FIVE different alliances passed through our space (From Gorgon to those Furnace wormhole guys). What others are trying to explain to you is that regardless of it's other merits, the new sov system fails at the one thing it should aim for. It's not fun for those of us brought in to EVE with the promise of 'fleet battles'. Aegis Sov is nothing less than a repudiation by CCP of one of the things that made the game epic. Sure they made it get out of control be creating a system (Dominion) that encouraged excesses and thus stagnation, but their 'fix' amounted to CCP saying "screw it, lets just replicate the feel and small gang/wackamole "epeen measuring contest" action of Faction Warfare/Low Sec and be done with it". If I wanted FW, I'd have stayed in FW. You're a wormhole person, imagine CCP totally trashed wormholes with gates and started allowing cynos ie turning it into null sec, how happy would you be about that? No one is expecting perfection, but CCP saying to us that one of the lynchpin activities (fleet battles) that drew some of us in just aren't on the menu is a hefty kick in the teeth.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6812	Posted - 2015.08.19 17:20:01 - [891] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Aegis Sov is nothing less than a repudiation by CCP of one of the things that made the game epic. Maybe the game shouldn't be epic anymore. Maybe the new vision of eve should be elite small gang skill trollceptor duels 1v1 me at the structure. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1138	Posted - 2015.08.19 18:42:18 - [892] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Aegis Sov is nothing less than a repudiation by CCP of one of the things that made the game epic. Maybe the game shouldn't be epic anymore. Maybe the new vision of eve should be elite small gang skill trollceptor duels 1v1 me at the structure. I tried to 1v1 a couple at the structure. They ran away. :(
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 96	Posted - 2015.08.19 19:12:53 - [893] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: If I wanted FW, I'd have stayed in FW. You're a wormhole person, imagine CCP totally trashed wormholes with gates and started allowing cynos ie turning it into null sec, how happy would you be about that? No one is expecting perfection, but CCP saying to us that one of the lynchpin activities (fleet battles) that drew some of us in just aren't on the menu is a hefty kick in the teeth. In this thread I learned having to defend space you choose to own instead of having vast AFK empires makes something FW. The proposed speed cap changes to entorsis seems like a decent middle ground ATM
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12151	Posted - 2015.08.19 19:40:21 - [894] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: If I wanted FW, I'd have stayed in FW. You're a wormhole person, imagine CCP totally trashed wormholes with gates and started allowing cynos ie turning it into null sec, how happy would you be about that? No one is expecting perfection, but CCP saying to us that one of the lynchpin activities (fleet battles) that drew some of us in just aren't on the menu is a hefty kick in the teeth. In this thread I learned having to defend space you choose to own instead of having vast AFK empires makes something FW. The proposed speed cap changes to entorsis seems like a decent middle ground ATM What large afk empire? My alliance holds 28 systems, we use them, I know, I rat in them lol. It's not that you don't understand what I'm talking about, it's that you don't want to. Frankly, I don't understand the idea of someone not wanting to know the truth of a situation. People who can't see past their own narrow (and in your case, outsider) perspective probably sholdn't join in on discussions like this, as most of the discussion will fly over your head. Answer my question, how would you like the null-secification of your wormhole space? I mean, it would be ok right, seeing as you're fully happy with CCPs lowseccing of null? And the entosis ship speed changes? Why are you stuck on the troll ceptor thing, trollceptors are nothing, gnats easily swatted. The issue is the focus of the Sov system being "small force wackamole" ala FW that gets REALLY tired after about 15 seconds even when you win the contest (and we have) rather than being one that encourages fleet fights (hopefully without the excesses of Dominion Sov) like CCP has been advertising to us for 12 years I can deal with tidi, I can't stomach games of whackamole much. Thankfully since very little SOV challenging is going on for about 200 light years around me, I don't have to worry about being called to a snore fleet very often. But it's a shame, CCP missed an opportunity to strengthen the sandbox (with a no-sov option) rather than dampen it with this over-engineered monstrosity called Aegis.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6813	Posted - 2015.08.19 23:17:38 - [895] - Quote Anyone who doesn't love the sov changes must be an afk empire Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2287	Posted - 2015.08.19 23:27:20 - [896] - Quote Boredom in Goonswarm must be reaching new levels if you're thinking about MOA. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Mallak Azaria GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6516	Posted - 2015.08.19 23:32:32 - [897] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Boredom in Goonswarm must be reaching new levels if you're thinking about MOA. We think about them a lot because we genuinely feel bad for them. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 96	Posted - 2015.08.20 00:24:53 - [898] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: What large afk empire? My alliance holds 28 systems, we use them, I know, I rat in them lol. It's not that you don't understand what I'm talking about, it's that you don't want to. Frankly, I don't understand the idea of someone not wanting to know the truth of a situation. People who can't see past their own narrow (and in your case, outsider) perspective probably sholdn't join in on discussions like this, as most of the discussion will fly over your head. Answer my question, how would you like the null-secification of your wormhole space? I mean, it would be ok right, seeing as you're fully happy with CCPs lowseccing of null? And the entosis ship speed changes? Why are you stuck on the troll ceptor thing, trollceptors are nothing, gnats easily swatted. The issue is the focus of the Sov system being "small force wackamole" ala FW that gets REALLY tired after about 15 seconds even when you win the contest (and we have) rather than being one that encourages fleet fights (hopefully without the excesses of Dominion Sov) like CCP has been advertising to us for 12 years I can deal with tidi, I can't stomach games of whackamole much. Thankfully since very little SOV challenging is going on for about 200 light years around me, I don't have to worry about being called to a snore fleet very often. But it's a shame, CCP missed an opportunity to strengthen the sandbox (with a no-sov option) rather than dampen it with this over-engineered monstrosity called Aegis. Every alliance I've been in with any character, 80% of systems are empty at any given moment. Including CFC and Test. If you aren't big enough to have at least 2-3 pilots in every system on a daily basis, you're too big for the space you have. That's the point here.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6813	Posted - 2015.08.20 04:57:52 - [899] - Quote What time zones are you visiting Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Kant Boards GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 48	Posted - 2015.08.20 05:03:44 - [900] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Every alliance I've been in with any character, 80% of systems are empty at any given moment. Including CFC and Test. You crazy. I cant go anywhere in our region without tripping over 10 karmafleet guys.

Yang Aurilen The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 800	Posted - 2015.08.20 05:07:30 - [901] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: What large afk empire? My alliance holds 28 systems, we use them, I know, I rat in them lol. It's not that you don't understand what I'm talking about, it's that you don't want to. Frankly, I don't understand the idea of someone not wanting to know the truth of a situation. People who can't see past their own narrow (and in your case, outsider) perspective probably sholdn't join in on discussions like this, as most of the discussion will fly over your head. Answer my question, how would you like the null-secification of your wormhole space? I mean, it would be ok right, seeing as you're fully happy with CCPs lowseccing of null? And the entosis ship speed changes? Why are you stuck on the troll ceptor thing, trollceptors are nothing, gnats easily swatted. The issue is the focus of the Sov system being "small force wackamole" ala FW that gets REALLY tired after about 15 seconds even when you win the contest (and we have) rather than being one that encourages fleet fights (hopefully without the excesses of Dominion Sov) like CCP has been advertising to us for 12 years I can deal with tidi, I can't stomach games of whackamole much. Thankfully since very little SOV challenging is going on for about 200 light years around me, I don't have to worry about being called to a snore fleet very often. But it's a shame, CCP missed an opportunity to strengthen the sandbox (with a no-sov option) rather than dampen it with this over-engineered monstrosity called Aegis. Every alliance I've been in with any character, 80% of systems are empty at any given moment. Including CFC and Test. If you aren't big enough to have at least 2-3 pilots in every system on a daily basis, you're too big for the space you have. That's the point here. So why aren't the "small guys" taking said systems from the "big bad evil sov holders"? I mean from your experience and perception the "big bad null guys" are too big for the amount of system they hold. Fozzie Sov pretty much got rid of structure grinds so the "small guys" no longer have any excuse of MUH SUPERS. Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6813	Posted - 2015.08.20 05:12:02 - [902] - Quote Tell moa about these empty systems of ours, I think they were invading us Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5281	Posted - 2015.08.20 05:12:40 - [903] - Quote It keeps going and going and ... FYI, this thread ended back at 741, and arguably earlier than that.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2342	Posted - 2015.08.20 06:42:20 - [904] - Quote Sonya Corvinus wrote: Every alliance I've been in with any character, 80% of systems are empty at any given moment. Including CFC and Test. If you aren't big enough to have at least 2-3 pilots in every system on a daily basis, you're too big for the space you have. That's the point here. AU timezone opinion doesn't count :P
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16934	Posted - 2015.08.20 06:52:33 - [905] - Quote 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 is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6813	Posted - 2015.08.20 07:09:46 - [906] - Quote I see that Northern Coalition. has made some bad choices in recent history. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Falken Falcon 32163	Posted - 2015.08.20 07:13:57 - [907] - 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 Can confirm. CCP just gotta phase out the "sov trolling" tactics and fozzysov is golden. Aye, Sea Turtles
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16936	Posted - 2015.08.20 07:29:20 - [908] - Quote Falken Falcon wrote: 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 Can confirm. CCP just gotta phase out the "sov trolling" tactics and fozzysov is golden. "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? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Salvos Rhoska 1263	Posted - 2015.08.20 08:37:24 - [909] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: No one is expecting perfection, but CCP saying to us that one of the lynchpin activities (fleet battles) that drew some of us in just aren't on the menu is a hefty kick in the teeth. My reading between the lines of the dev blog numbered goals suggests this pretty strongly too. They are moving away from large fleet battles and attempting to disperse conflict over more systems simultaneously. Like that direction or not, or the means they are implementing to achieve that, but that much seems to be the underlying theme to the new goals. Im not sure why, but I expect its reasonable to assume this is at lesst partly to avoid TiDi, save on server costs?, take some of the edge off sheer overpower of some existing bloc vs smaller aggressors, diversify and disperse fronts in an attempt to make sov ownership more dynamic. Its arguable though, I think, whether sov mechanics, in any of its forms, have ever really been a deciding factor in large fleet battles happening in the first place. Fights should be, I think, ultimately, what decide sov. PvP and explosions. Trick is finding a way to connect sov capture and ownership mechanics to PvP in a way that promotes fights, sooner or later. ------------
Falken Falcon 32163	Posted - 2015.08.20 08:56:58 - [910] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Falken Falcon wrote: 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 Can confirm. CCP just gotta phase out the "sov trolling" tactics and fozzysov is golden. "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? I get what you are saying. It is usually a huge disapointment when you muster the 40 man cerb fleet expecting a fight, but then just when the fleet undocks, the scout(s) reports that it was 3 people in dessies and they are already bugging out when the saw the ceptor. vOv Aye, Sea Turtles

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16936	Posted - 2015.08.20 10:09:10 - [911] - Quote You don't need 40 Cerberus "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6586	Posted - 2015.08.20 10:34:02 - [912] - 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!
Snowmann Arrow Industries 38	Posted - 2015.08.20 12:26:20 - [913] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Its creating conflict, lots of conflict, just look at the forums. Oh yeah, just not conflict on your terms. Gotta hate those guys who won't fight on your terms... Like Sun Zu Quote: If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. Key points: -If he is in superior strength, evade him -If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him -If he is taking his ease, give him no rest -Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected Sun Zu says that attack where your enemy is weakest, not where they are strongest. You demand battles on your terms that are fun but that isn't the point. You are simply being attacked by the very principles of Sun Zu and you cannot or will not adapt. And those who are doing it are having fun, at your expense. It is so amazing that he new form of Sov actually allows us as players to implement tactics and strategy in Sov warfare from the Art of War at such a fundamental level. And it is so interesting to see some of those with the best gear in the game being unable to adapt.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12156	Posted - 2015.08.20 12:42:30 - [914] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: Sonya Corvinus wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: What large afk empire? My alliance holds 28 systems, we use them, I know, I rat in them lol. It's not that you don't understand what I'm talking about, it's that you don't want to. Frankly, I don't understand the idea of someone not wanting to know the truth of a situation. People who can't see past their own narrow (and in your case, outsider) perspective probably sholdn't join in on discussions like this, as most of the discussion will fly over your head. Answer my question, how would you like the null-secification of your wormhole space? I mean, it would be ok right, seeing as you're fully happy with CCPs lowseccing of null? And the entosis ship speed changes? Why are you stuck on the troll ceptor thing, trollceptors are nothing, gnats easily swatted. The issue is the focus of the Sov system being "small force wackamole" ala FW that gets REALLY tired after about 15 seconds even when you win the contest (and we have) rather than being one that encourages fleet fights (hopefully without the excesses of Dominion Sov) like CCP has been advertising to us for 12 years I can deal with tidi, I can't stomach games of whackamole much. Thankfully since very little SOV challenging is going on for about 200 light years around me, I don't have to worry about being called to a snore fleet very often. But it's a shame, CCP missed an opportunity to strengthen the sandbox (with a no-sov option) rather than dampen it with this over-engineered monstrosity called Aegis. Every alliance I've been in with any character, 80% of systems are empty at any given moment. Including CFC and Test. If you aren't big enough to have at least 2-3 pilots in every system on a daily basis, you're too big for the space you have. That's the point here. So why aren't the "small guys" taking said systems from the "big bad evil sov holders"? I mean from your experience and perception the "big bad null guys" are too big for the amount of system they hold. Fozzie Sov pretty much got rid of structure grinds so the "small guys" no longer have any excuse of MUH SUPERS. Demonstrating that the problem was never "all those damn supers", it was "all that damn weakness and lack of drive" of the small guys. Lots of people (in game and in life) hide behind the idea that they can't win because of some per-existing condition, which is how they convince themselves to not even try in the 1st place (thus protecting them from the potential sting of defeat).
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 96	Posted - 2015.08.20 14:27:11 - [915] - Quote Yang Aurilen wrote: So why aren't the "small guys" taking said systems from the "big bad evil sov holders"? I mean from your experience and perception the "big bad null guys" are too big for the amount of system they hold. Fozzie Sov pretty much got rid of structure grinds so the "small guys" no longer have any excuse of MUH SUPERS. because holding sov isn't a priority for the small guys. content generation is. Jenn aSide wrote: Demonstrating that the problem was never "all those damn supers", it was "all that damn weakness and lack of drive" of the small guys. Lots of people (in game and in life) hide behind the idea that they can't win because of some per-existing condition, which is how they convince themselves to not even try in the 1st place (thus protecting them from the potential sting of defeat). supers were never the problem. alliances with thousands and thousands of members refusing to take the risk of shrinking and setting neighbors to red has been the problem for years. which is why major alliances are petitioning against the recent changes
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1139	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:23:11 - [916] - Quote Look, you can ride the "stop blueing everyone" train to the end of the line, but what you are hoping for isn't going to happen. Those who disliked the scope of our coalition are mostly already gone. What you have left, is largely a bunch of friends (in leadership anyway) who will ride Eve to it's grave before resetting each other, just because some lowsec jackasses think we should. This has been shown time and again. No interceptors, cancer nodes, or amount of "it's your own fault" is going to change that. We are humans. We have formed a cohesive spacetribe. It's been this way for years. CCP can either plan around that, or watch things continue to go to hell. I am honestly at the point where I don't even care anymore. I'll leave the game before I see coalitionmates resetting each other just because CCP saw fit to shoot themselves in the foot with a gun that was loaded for human nature. I have a feeling that I am not the only one.
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 96	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:26:47 - [917] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Look, you can ride the "stop blueing everyone" train to the end of the line, but what you are hoping for isn't going to happen. Those who disliked the scope of our coalition are mostly already gone. What you have left, is largely a bunch of friends (in leadership anyway) who will ride Eve to it's grave, before resetting each other just because some lowsec jackasses think we should. This has been shown time and again. No interceptors, cancer nodes, or amount of "it's your own fault" is going to change that. We are humans. We have formed a cohesive spacetribe. It's been this way for years. CCP can either plan around that, or watch things continue to go to hell. I am honestly at the point where I don't even care anymore. I'll leave the game before I see coalitionmates resetting each other just because CCP saw fit to shoot themselves in the foot with a gun that was loaded for human nature. I have a feeling that I am not the only one. I don't disagree with any of this. It does confirm that the major alliances are bears though.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1139	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:31:15 - [918] - Quote That's pretty irrelevant to the point. Feel free to invade Deklein, and we'd be happy to show you. Oh, right, ~elitepvp~ won't help you here. It's pretty amazing how happy these bears are, to drop 30 to 40 of their bearing ships on anyone stupid enough to bring anything worth killing. We have our home. Feel free to kick in the door at any time.
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2288	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:32:50 - [919] - Quote Malcanis wrote: You don't need 40 Cerberus Heh, people bring overwhelming numbers and can't figure out why people don't stick around to fight. Mind boggling. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2288	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:35:56 - [920] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: That's pretty irrelevant to the point. Feel free to invade Deklein, and we'd be happy to show you. Oh, right, ~elitepvp~ won't help you here. It's pretty amazing how happy these bears are, to drop 30 to 40 of their bearing ships on anyone stupid enough to bring anything worth killing. We have our home. Feel free to kick in the door at any time. I'm convinced any invading force would be recruited and quickly added to your blue ball of boring. Unless it's 2 or 3 people, then they are trolling because you actually have to log in to deal with it and many tears must be shed so CCP can cave again. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~

Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1139	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:37:55 - [921] - Quote If you call 40 Cerbs overwhelming numbers, I can't help but wonder why no one wants to fly with you. With the number of nerds we have around at any time, we'll usually have more than 40 in a fleet before a ping even goes out. I do like how people can say "make some friends" out of one side of their mouth to new players, while basically telling others "you have too many friends, and need to leave most of them at home" out of the other.
Sonya Corvinus Chickenhawk. 96	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:40:25 - [922] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: That's pretty irrelevant to the point. Feel free to invade Deklein, and we'd be happy to show you. Oh, right, ~elitepvp~ won't help you here. It's pretty amazing how happy these bears are, to drop 30 to 40 of their bearing ships on anyone stupid enough to bring anything worth killing. We have our home. Feel free to kick in the door at any time. /sigh. bears will be bears I guess
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1139	Posted - 2015.08.20 15:51:06 - [923] - Quote You can call us by whatever name you wish. It doesn't change the fact that we'll just be over here, playing other games with this same group of friends, until CCP decides to unfuck their game. My point is, we've been here for years. We're not going anywhere. You would think people would have accepted this by now, and realized that any attempt to break us apart is going to result in unsubs, not a broken coalition and more space fights for everyone. That being said, if you want to see conflict, give us a reason to wake the sleeping giant and lumber this big ass behemoth across the universe. "Gudfites" is not a reason. However, something like mobile and depleting high value resources might be. Initiative have always been a special (and kinda weird) case. I am positive that no matter how badly CCP ***** the bed on sov mechanics, they'll find a way to pick up conflict out of it. The rest of us just can't be arsed to put in that kind of effort without a tangible reason to do so.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6590	Posted - 2015.08.20 16:29:08 - [924] - Quote Snowmann wrote: Like Sun Zu 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!
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2288	Posted - 2015.08.20 16:41:16 - [925] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: If you call 40 Cerbs overwhelming numbers, I can't help but wonder why no one wants to fly with you. With the number of nerds we have around at any time, we'll usually have more than 40 in a fleet before a ping even goes out. I do like how people can say "make some friends" out of one side of their mouth to new players, while basically telling others "you have too many friends, and need to leave most of them at home" out of the other. Yeah when you bring 40 to fight 3 it's overwhelming numbers. Did you fail math or just skip school completely? ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16938	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:26:43 - [926] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: I see that Northern Coalition. has made some bad choices in recent history. That is also true. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Salvos Rhoska 1264	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:26:50 - [927] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: we'll usually have more than 40 in a fleet before a ping even goes out. Impressive, but also inversly part of the problem. The "F1 monkey" phenomenon is real. You know that as much as I do. As has been your strategy of assimilation and incorporation, you were wise to recruit them. But nonetheless, these are players who just want to be on the winning side, and be ordered around. They side with a "winner", cos it makes them feel like a "winner". Again, you know this as much as I do. Basically WoW mentality players, with nothing else to offer, and whom produce nothing unless directed to do so. Passive, useless meat riding on your coat-tail, and all the more demanding for you/someone to lead them. I sympathise and commiserate with how hard it must be to placate them. Im sure most of you would rather push them out of an airlock and be done with it. ------------
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16938	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:27:58 - [928] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Initiative have always been a special (and kinda weird) case... orly? I thought we were a super old school kind of alliance. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Cancel Align NOW Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 557	Posted - 2015.08.20 17:43:38 - [929] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Perhaps SMA should invade Initiative. It would provide some clarity in this discussion.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2121	Posted - 2015.08.20 18:10:04 - [930] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: That being said, if you want to see conflict, give us a reason to wake the sleeping giant and lumber this big ass behemoth across the universe. "Gudfites" is not a reason. However, something like mobile and depleting high value resources might be. Why throw billions worth of fleet at an objective without being sure there is that much value left in the system you are trying to capture? The issue with the moving ressources is that it's value is much lower because you never really know how much of it is left before you take it. How often would you siege a moon if sometime, there was 3 tick of goo left in it before it depleeted? Might as well just wait for it to spawn back on your turf...

Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1626	Posted - 2015.08.20 18:17:50 - [931] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You can call us by whatever name you wish. It doesn't change the fact that we'll just be over here, playing other games with this same group of friends, until CCP decides to unfuck their game. My point is, we've been here for years. We're not going anywhere. You would think people would have accepted this by now, and realized that any attempt to break us apart is going to result in unsubs, not a broken coalition and more space fights for everyone. That being said, if you want to see conflict, give us a reason to wake the sleeping giant and lumber this big ass behemoth across the universe. "Gudfites" is not a reason. However, something like mobile and depleting high value resources might be. Initiative have always been a special (and kinda weird) case. I am positive that no matter how badly CCP ***** the bed on sov mechanics, they'll find a way to pick up conflict out of it. The rest of us just can't be arsed to put in that kind of effort without a tangible reason to do so. There's nothing weird about INIT at all. Any Imperium alliance could do the same thing if they made the same choices. If someone chooses to sit and do nothing, yea, they'll find the game becomes boring pretty quickly.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1140	Posted - 2015.08.20 18:38:55 - [932] - Quote Salvos: leaders without followers are just crazy people yelling at the wind. The fact is that in Eve, much like in life, sometimes you just need people who will shut the hell up, and do their job. In a world of leaders, nothing would ever get done. Thinkers and doers, and all of that. Malcanis: what once was normal is now the exception. You've seen the gradual phasing toward "**** this, that's too much like work" as well as I have. Frostys: that's what spies are for. If there's one thing we're good at, it's espionage. Seven: fighting for the hell of it just feels hollow. If that's what I wanted, I'd join RvB.
Salvos Rhoska 1264	Posted - 2015.08.20 19:17:49 - [933] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Salvos: leaders without followers are just crazy people yelling at that in Eve, much like in life, sometimes you just need people who will shut the hell up, and do their job. In a world of leaders, nothing would ever get done. Thinkers and doers, and all of that Understood and granted. I dont envy your position(cept maybe a little), just reminding you and everyone else concerned about what the mass of players are. F1 monkey, join the winner, and flippant riders to success. I know how to follow orders (military background), but I also know the difference from that to someone who makes a difference. In a sandbox, as we are, change is enacted by inspired leaders, and followed by F1 chimps. Goon/Imperium conduct is exemplary in this regard towards constituents, and a great credit. But for not one moment do I not believe that you cant stand the mass of morons you have to deal with. That, if anything, is your organisations single greatest achievement. The whine, lame politics and complaint... Id be ripping heads off, right and left :D GL and HF. Was, and hopefully will be in future, a pleasure. ------------
Lena Lazair Khanid's Legion Irregulars Khanid's Legion 522	Posted - 2015.08.20 19:31:09 - [934] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Look, you can ride the "stop blueing everyone" train to the end of the line, but what you are hoping for isn't going to happen. Those who disliked the scope of our coalition are mostly already gone. What you have left, is largely a bunch of friends (in leadership anyway) who will ride Eve to it's grave, before resetting each other just because some lowsec jackasses think we should. This has been shown time and again. No interceptors, cancer nodes, or amount of "it's your own fault" is going to change that. We are humans. We have formed a cohesive spacetribe. It's been this way for years. CCP can either plan around that, or watch things continue to go to hell. I am honestly at the point where I don't even care anymore. I'll leave the game before I see coalitionmates resetting each other just because CCP saw fit to shoot themselves in the foot with a gun that was loaded for human nature. I have a feeling that I am not the only one. That's fine, but there is literally no mechanic or incentive that will prevent this. If you are hell bent on blueing everyone, there is literally nothing CCP can do to stop you. So at that point, what exactly are you even asking for?
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1140	Posted - 2015.08.20 19:41:24 - [935] - Quote Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. I can count on one hand, the number of fleets I have been on where there wasn't at least one blue that I wanted to primary and then try to have kicked from comms. Unfortunately, sometimes, that someone is also the FC. Truth be told, there are only about five FCs who's fleets I will go on. Not because the others are bad at spaceships, but because they are bad about letting loud retards ruin everyone else's evening. Yes yes, I know: no chatter channel. Unfortunately when one needs to be able to listen to input from scouts, they're also stuck listening to every mouthbreathing, unfunny shitler who thinks that "tell your wife to make me a sandwich" is the height of comedy.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16938	Posted - 2015.08.20 20:20:25 - [936] - Quote Cancel Align NOW wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Perhaps SMA should invade Initiative. It would provide some clarity in this discussion. Perhaps they should come with us on our next vacation! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16938	Posted - 2015.08.20 20:21:34 - [937] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. I can count on one hand, the number of fleets I have been on where there wasn't at least one blue that I wanted to primary and then try to have kicked from comms. Unfortunately, sometimes, that someone is also the FC. Truth be told, there are only about five FCs who's fleets I will go on. Not because the others are bad at spaceships, but because they are bad about letting loud retards ruin everyone else's evening. Yes yes, I know: no chatter channel. Unfortunately when one needs to be able to listen to input from scouts, they're also stuck listening to every mouthbreathing, unfunny shitler who thinks that "tell your wife to make me a sandwich" is the height of comedy. Drop by VANIS channel, I'll vouch "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1141	Posted - 2015.08.20 20:37:08 - [938] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. I can count on one hand, the number of fleets I have been on where there wasn't at least one blue that I wanted to primary and then try to have kicked from comms. Unfortunately, sometimes, that someone is also the FC. Truth be told, there are only about five FCs who's fleets I will go on. Not because the others are bad at spaceships, but because they are bad about letting loud retards ruin everyone else's evening. Yes yes, I know: no chatter channel. Unfortunately when one needs to be able to listen to input from scouts, they're also stuck listening to every mouthbreathing, unfunny shitler who thinks that "tell your wife to make me a sandwich" is the height of comedy. Drop by VANIS channel, I'll vouch Believe it or not, I had considered Init back before I ended up in GSF. Funny enough, it was because of reading stuff that you and Bliss had written on Kugu. Then I found out that you guys are (or at least were, not sure about currently) almost entirely EUTZ, which poses a bit of a problem, seeing as I am a filthy American who often works late, even by USTZ standards.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16938	Posted - 2015.08.20 20:40:58 - [939] - Quote God knows we've tried to get a USTZ working "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Snowmann Arrow Industries 38	Posted - 2015.08.20 22:34:44 - [940] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Look, you can ride the "stop blueing everyone" train to the end of the line, but what you are hoping for isn't going to happen. Those who disliked the scope of our coalition are mostly already gone. What you have left, is largely a bunch of friends (in leadership anyway) who will ride Eve to it's grave, before resetting each other just because some lowsec jackasses think we should. This has been shown time and again. No interceptors, cancer nodes, or amount of "it's your own fault" is going to change that. We are humans. We have formed a cohesive spacetribe. It's been this way for years. CCP can either plan around that, or watch things continue to go to hell. I am honestly at the point where I don't even care anymore. I'll leave the game before I see coalitionmates resetting each other just because CCP saw fit to shoot themselves in the foot with a gun that was loaded for human nature. I have a feeling that I am not the only one. Which completely validates what CCP is doing.

Snowmann Arrow Industries 38	Posted - 2015.08.20 22:41:15 - [941] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You can call us by whatever name you wish. It doesn't change the fact that we'll just be over here, playing other games with this same group of friends, until CCP decides to unfuck their game. My point is, we've been here for years. We're not going anywhere. You would think people would have accepted this by now, and realized that any attempt to break us apart is going to result in unsubs,.... Might not be such a bad thing, for the game.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16939	Posted - 2015.08.20 23:03:11 - [942] - Quote Oh come on now is it really better to unsub in a huff than try and work out what super special space magic that INIT.-are-**** Initiative have got? PEE ESS RAZOR NOW HAVE THE SPACE MAGIC TOO! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Salvos Rhoska 1265	Posted - 2015.08.21 00:47:26 - [943] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: My point is, we've been here for years. We're not going anywhere. You would think people would have accepted this by now, and realized that any attempt to break us apart is going to result in unsubs,.... Even I know this, and accept it and realize repercussions. But this also constitutes very serious problems in many number of ways, as Im sure you are aware of too. In the meantime, game continues, fortunately with most of the population blissfully ignorant and at least, at best, only indirectly affected. ------------
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1144	Posted - 2015.08.21 13:43:47 - [944] - Quote Snowmann wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You can call us by whatever name you wish. It doesn't change the fact that we'll just be over here, playing other games with this same group of friends, until CCP decides to unfuck their game. My point is, we've been here for years. We're not going anywhere. You would think people would have accepted this by now, and realized that any attempt to break us apart is going to result in unsubs,.... Might not be such a bad thing, for the game. I like where you decided to cut that quote off. For the record, I am not talking about GSF line members unsubbing because "can't rat safely" or whatever drivel you like to tell yourself. I am talking about major content creators bailing out of nullsec, and not just bloc level FCs either. As a prime example, go read wheniaminspace's reasons for leaving Eve, that he posted on Reddit. Hint: Aegis.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16941	Posted - 2015.08.21 20:47:09 - [945] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Snowmann wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: You can call us by whatever name you wish. It doesn't change the fact that we'll just be over here, playing other games with this same group of friends, until CCP decides to unfuck their game. My point is, we've been here for years. We're not going anywhere. You would think people would have accepted this by now, and realized that any attempt to break us apart is going to result in unsubs,.... Might not be such a bad thing, for the game. I like where you decided to cut that quote off. For the record, I am not talking about GSF line members unsubbing because "can't rat safely" or whatever drivel you like to tell yourself. I am talking about major content creators bailing out of nullsec, and not just bloc level FCs either. As a prime example, go read wheniaminspace's reasons for leaving Eve, that he posted on Reddit. Hint: Aegis. My reaction to that gigantic steaming pile of screed is that he's a bad. Everyone who says that they can't have fun with fozzie sov is literally admitting that they're worse at EVE than Razor. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1144	Posted - 2015.08.21 21:23:40 - [946] - Quote You may be missing the point. Regardless of who is worse at Eve, I see a lot of the major content creators bailing out, and not many people stepping in to fill the voids. The thing with the small gang stuff that CCP seems to want to push, is that it requires far more leaders to keep the same amount of people occupied. Groups like The Imperium will have far less trouble adjusting than alliances that tend to rely on one or two key FCs. If this ends up leading to more people taking the reins, then great. However, my more realistic expectation is mass leadership burnout, and the subsequent unsubbing of bored followers.
Marsha Mallow 2456	Posted - 2015.08.21 21:36:31 - [947] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: bored followers. Could you explain to me in less than 10k words exactly how entertained those 'followers' have been in the 12 months leading upto Phoebe and/or Aegis? Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: TO THE PITCHFORKMOBILE! Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread Jenn aSide wrote: does anyone have any assless chaps I could borrow?
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1144	Posted - 2015.08.21 22:25:54 - [948] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: bored followers. Could you explain to me in less than 10k words exactly how entertained those 'followers' have been in the 12 months leading upto Phoebe and/or Aegis? I never said late Dominion was very compelling. I've just been pointing out that they may have run a weee bit far in the other direction. What they have done with sov mechanics, is basically the equivalent of suddenly making faction warfare plexes require supers and dreads. It may not be "bad", depending upon who you ask, but it would be too far in the opposite direction.
Kieron VonDeux 70	Posted - 2015.08.21 22:48:14 - [949] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: bored followers. Could you explain to me in less than 10k words exactly how entertained those 'followers' have been in the 12 months leading upto Phoebe and/or Aegis? I never said late Dominion was very compelling. I've just been pointing out that they may have run a weee bit far in the other direction. What they have done with sov mechanics, is basically the equivalent of suddenly making faction warfare plexes require supers and dreads. It may not be "bad", depending upon who you ask, but it would be too far in the opposite direction. Well, considering what they may do with Supercaps and Capitals, it may be completely relevant for them to make it so they are not needed in the new form of Sov, which they did. And since there was so many complaining about the amount of space players owned, but not used, it made sense they would make the new Sov some form of occupancy based, which they did. And that is all they really did. If you actually live in the space you claim, it is not hard to maintain it. But if you play other games while you wait for someone else to start that first timer, well, you could react in Dom Sov doing that, but not in the new one, which is kind of the point. You need to actually need to living in that space and be active to claim it.
Marsha Mallow 2456	Posted - 2015.08.21 23:10:52 - [950] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: bored followers. Could you explain to me in less than 10k words exactly how entertained those 'followers' have been in the 12 months leading upto Phoebe and/or Aegis? I never said late Dominion was very compelling. I've just been pointing out that they may have run a weee bit far in the other direction. What they have done with sov mechanics, is basically the equivalent of suddenly making faction warfare plexes require supers and dreads. It may not be "bad", depending upon who you ask, but it would be too far in the opposite direction. Explain how 'earlier Dominion' was compelling, in your own words, please* Apologies for snipping your earlier comment btw, just trying to cut through the verbiage to the point. My replies are also lengthy, so nothing wrong with a bit of rambling imo, and nps with snipping through them. *Sorry, I know this is really mean (it really isn't personal), but Sophocles is pretty much my favourite reading material If you can't answer this one personally, maybe get a leader. Reagalan? I would't mind seeing more. Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: TO THE PITCHFORKMOBILE! Benny Ohu wrote: fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread Jenn aSide wrote: does anyone have any assless chaps I could borrow?

BrundleMeth Caldari Provisions Caldari State 459	Posted - 2015.08.21 23:36:49 - [951] - Quote I havent undocked my Main for 3 years... And this one for awhile too. I just play to watch my SP go up...and chat at times...all my favorite ships have been nerfed into stupidity....Eventually I'll pack it in, the glory days are over...
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2347	Posted - 2015.08.21 23:58:11 - [952] - Quote BrundleMeth wrote: I havent undocked my Main for 3 years... And this one for awhile too. I just play to watch my SP go up...and chat at times...all my favorite ships have been nerfed into stupidity....Eventually I'll pack it in, the glory days are over... That has nothing to do with Fozziesov. That's just bittervet syndrome in a very late stage ^^
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1144	Posted - 2015.08.22 00:57:31 - [953] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: [quote=Gallowmere Rorschach][quote=Marsha Mallow] Explain how 'earlier Dominion' was compelling, in your own words, please* People realized pretty early on what the EHP wall in Dominion was going to require. It hastened the capital arms race among any and all serious nullsec contenders. This made for some rather interesting strategic options. Killing a capital/super fleet was no longer just about killmails, epeen, and bragging rights. Every capital you blew up, every super you aborted, every titan that you caught and killed, was one less that an enemy would have at their disposal later when trying to grind your space. The problem with this, is that it had a pretty clear endgame. Art (and video games) often imitate reality. The cold wars we saw reaching across null by the end of Dominion were the end of an era where two superpowers possessed the nuclear option, but realized that something similar to mutually assured destruction would likely be the end result of committing these assets to invading the other. This was temporarily overcome for B-R, and it had a rather lopsided outcome. The final "war" (more like purge) of Dominion sov showed what happens when the last true superpower is left unchecked to burn anything that isn't blue. Sebastian led one of the most effective hellpurges of a region that I have ever seen.
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2291	Posted - 2015.08.22 01:59:06 - [954] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Look, you can ride the "stop blueing everyone" train to the end of the line, but what you are hoping for isn't going to happen. Those who disliked the scope of our coalition are mostly already gone. What you have left, is largely a bunch of friends (in leadership anyway) who will ride Eve to it's grave, before resetting each other just because some lowsec jackasses think we should. This has been shown time and again. No interceptors, cancer nodes, or amount of "it's your own fault" is going to change that. We are humans. We have formed a cohesive spacetribe. It's been this way for years. CCP can either plan around that, or watch things continue to go to hell. I am honestly at the point where I don't even care anymore. I'll leave the game before I see coalitionmates resetting each other just because CCP saw fit to shoot themselves in the foot with a gun that was loaded for human nature. I have a feeling that I am not the only one. Congrats. You are literally the cancer that's killing eve. CCP should read this till it sinks in and quit wasting time on you and focus all effort on new players. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6814	Posted - 2015.08.22 02:40:00 - [955] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Congrats. You are literally the cancer that's killing eve. The cancer is pretty large and blue, is that what you're saying? Join moa in wiping us off the map, just get an interceptor and the fit in jita and fly down, it's a fast journey Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 849	Posted - 2015.08.22 04:32:59 - [956] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Congrats. You are literally the cancer that's killing eve. CCP should read this till it sinks in and quit wasting time on you and focus all effort on new players. "Stop blueing everyone" is the despairing wail of the crushed failures (who in many cases tried a 'blue everyone' strategy of their own but were too incompetent, disorganized or autistic to hold it together) and should be treated as such. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Kieron VonDeux 70	Posted - 2015.08.22 04:54:17 - [957] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Sentamon wrote: Congrats. You are literally the cancer that's killing eve. The cancer is pretty large and blue, is that what you're saying? Join moa in wiping us off the map, just get an interceptor and the fit in jita and fly down, it's a fast journey The cancer is the thought that one group can influence game design enough to maintain their dominate position indefinitely at the sufferance of the rest of the player base. Many players were concerned about that during the T20 incident among others, and many are concerned about that with one groups attempt to swamp feedback threads with apparent self-serving criticism of game design. Read it how you want, we can all see the stats from Eve Search, and many read it as one group attempting to influence game design to their own advantage, not for the good of the game.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2348	Posted - 2015.08.22 08:23:56 - [958] - Quote How is no conflict at all better for the game than whatever it was that was in place 12 months ago?
mydingaling GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2015.08.22 08:38:54 - [959] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Sentamon wrote: Congrats. You are literally the cancer that's killing eve. The cancer is pretty large and blue, is that what you're saying? Join moa in wiping us off the map, just get an interceptor and the fit in jita and fly down, it's a fast journey The cancer is the thought that one group can influence the game or game design enough to maintain their dominate position indefinitely at the sufferance of the rest of the player base. Many players were concerned about that during the T20 incident among others, and many are concerned about that with one groups attempt to swamp feedback threads with apparent self-serving criticism of game design. Read it how you want, we can all see the stats from Eve Search, and many read it as one group attempting to influence game design to their own advantage, not for the good of the game. I dunno what more CCP can do to help you overthrow our dominance? With the jump changes and the new small footprint sov feature we gave up lots of space. The best thing is you don't even have to bother with actually taking or living in any of it. You can join MOA right now and live safe as a baby in your uncontestable 0.0 stations complete with profitable mission agents. All the benefits of 0.0 with none of the risk. You even get to zoom around like a gangster in your uncatchable interceptor of entosigasm sticking it to the man. I can't imagine what is next in line to help you all? Maybe some wings of protection to spawn concord?
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2349	Posted - 2015.08.22 09:48:33 - [960] - Quote Sentamon wrote: Malcanis wrote: You don't need 40 Cerberus Heh, people bring overwhelming numbers and can't figure out why people don't stick around to fight. Mind boggling. That's not the point. People bring overwhelming numbers because people show up. The way a fleet like that is formed is pretty simple. Things to shoot shows up > Call goes out > People join fleet, depending on the amount of stuff and what kind of stuff needs shooting, those fleets become quite large quite quickly. If it is about shooting a bunch of interceptors that are applying sovlasers to things, there will likely be a smaller turnout than when somebody comes rolling through with a group of battlecruisers (bad example, nobody flies those anymore, but an example nonetheless) The main complaint from big evil sov holders is that the current iteration of sov warfare is more boring than what we previously had in place and this is ridiculous, considering what we previously had in place involved shooting massive hitpoint pools which is probably the most stupid and boring gameplay design in the history of grinds. Someone has managed to iterate on that and make something more boring! They said we'll give you a sov system that's fun for everyone. I am seeing none of that and I wont for one second believe that the small gang types are enjoying what is happening. They might enjoy 'us' whining about it because they have been drilled to enjoy that, just like we have been drilled to enjoy it when they mess up and get 3 cruisers killed. Oh and yes, sov 0.0 is largley full of carebears, if that's what you want to call them. They organise and they band together to keep their space home they have made for themselves from falling apart and they'll continue to do so. They/We/Whatever are actually quite good at it. In the meantime, the tiny numbers this new 'style' of warfare requires, causes one thing in particular (or that I can see anyways) People stop logging in, particularly people (or alts) that are specialised into flying larger, bigger, heavier (and largely unneeded) ships. You might argue that this is all fine and dandy and given enough time, this trend will cause the evil sov holders to lose people while nothing actually changes. So yay, now there are fewer people playing the same game as before (with less reloading and cycling guns) and nothing has really changed anything and don't get me wrong, I am not saying that dominion sov was any better but at least it brought more 'people' 'together' and made the whole thing feel more alive than it has since the dawn of the sovlaser.

BrundleMeth Caldari Provisions Caldari State 460	Posted - 2015.08.22 11:31:11 - [961] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: BrundleMeth wrote: I havent undocked my Main for 3 years... And this one for awhile too. I just play to watch my SP go up...and chat at times...all my favorite ships have been nerfed into stupidity....Eventually I'll pack it in, the glory days are over... That has nothing to do with Fozziesov. That's just bittervet syndrome in a very late stage ^^ I suppose you're right...but it did just add to the problem for me somewhat...
Kieron VonDeux 70	Posted - 2015.08.22 11:39:10 - [962] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Sentamon wrote: Malcanis wrote: You don't need 40 Cerberus Heh, people bring overwhelming numbers and can't figure out why people don't stick around to fight. Mind boggling. ....They said we'll give you a sov system that's fun for everyone... Afraid that isn't possible. No change in this game has ever been accepted by 100% of player base, not even the skill queue. Neither will any Sov change. Though, this one has been accepted by more than I expected, with the exception of a certain vocal player group for the most part.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6814	Posted - 2015.08.22 12:05:58 - [963] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: Though, this one has been accepted by more than I expected, with the exception of a certain vocal player group for the most part. Do they have sov? Quick, get your interceptors ready, race ya from Jita to troll them! Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6814	Posted - 2015.08.22 12:06:57 - [964] - Quote mydingaling wrote: I dunno what more CCP can do to help you overthrow our dominance? With the jump changes and the new small footprint sov feature we gave up lots of space. The best thing is you don't even have to bother with actually taking or living in any of it. You can join MOA right now and live safe as a baby in your uncontestable 0.0 stations complete with profitable mission agents. All the benefits of 0.0 with none of the risk. You even get to zoom around like a gangster in your uncatchable interceptor of entosigasm sticking it to the man. I can't imagine what is next in line to help you all? Maybe some wings of protection to spawn concord? Make it even faster to laser the structure and slower to defend it. Special NPC insurance rates on ships if they die with an entosis fitted (plus they scold you for dying if it's a certain type of ship that you lost, bad player you) Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Antylus Tyrell Uedama Artisan Jams 19	Posted - 2015.08.22 13:02:20 - [965] - Quote mydingaling wrote: You can join MOA right now and live safe as a baby in your uncontestable 0.0 stations complete with profitable mission agents. All the benefits of 0.0 with none of the risk. I absolutely love that this is a new goon talking point. You do realize that anyone can dock in that station, even you? If you collectively whine enough you might get CCP to remove NPC stations, but then MOA would just farm you from a lowsec staging system. You should ask CCP to make a CFC only server, so you can do what you like to do without outside annoyances.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2349	Posted - 2015.08.22 14:06:51 - [966] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: Kiandoshia wrote: Sentamon wrote: Malcanis wrote: You don't need 40 Cerberus Heh, people bring overwhelming numbers and can't figure out why people don't stick around to fight. Mind boggling. ....They said we'll give you a sov system that's fun for everyone... Afraid that isn't possible. No change in this game has ever been accepted by 100% of player base, not even the skill queue. Neither will any Sov change. Though, this one has been accepted by more than I expected, with the exception of a certain vocal player group for the most part. Yes, the people who love it are those who have nothing to do with sov :D I too would love a change that made mining largely unnecessary but I don't mine, so I mostly shut up about it.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6814	Posted - 2015.08.22 15:07:51 - [967] - Quote Antylus Tyrell wrote: mydingaling wrote: You can join MOA right now and live safe as a baby in your uncontestable 0.0 stations complete with profitable mission agents. All the benefits of 0.0 with none of the risk. I absolutely love that this is a new goon talking point. You do realize that anyone can dock in that station, even you? If you collectively whine enough you might get CCP to remove NPC stations, but then MOA would just farm you from a lowsec staging system. You should ask CCP to make a CFC only server, so you can do what you like to do without outside annoyances. You say that as though we haven't camped them into that station and run the missions for pancake battleships Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16944	Posted - 2015.08.22 15:11:49 - [968] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Sentamon wrote: Malcanis wrote: You don't need 40 Cerberus Heh, people bring overwhelming numbers and can't figure out why people don't stick around to fight. Mind boggling. That's not the point. People bring overwhelming numbers because people show up. The way a fleet like that is formed is pretty simple. Things to shoot shows up > Call goes out > People join fleet, depending on the amount of stuff and what kind of stuff needs shooting, those fleets become quite large quite quickly. If it is about shooting a bunch of interceptors that are applying sovlasers to things, there will likely be a smaller turnout than when somebody comes rolling through with a group of battlecruisers (bad example, nobody flies those anymore, but an example nonetheless) The main complaint from big evil sov holders is that the current iteration of sov warfare is more boring than what we previously had in place and this is ridiculous, considering what we previously had in place involved shooting massive hitpoint pools which is probably the most stupid and boring gameplay design in the history of grinds. Someone has managed to iterate on that and make something more boring! They said we'll give you a sov system that's fun for everyone. I am seeing none of that and I wont for one second believe that the small gang types are enjoying what is happening. They might enjoy 'us' whining about it because they have been drilled to enjoy that, just like we have been drilled to enjoy it when they mess up and get 3 cruisers killed. Oh and yes, sov 0.0 is largley full of carebears, if that's what you want to call them. They organise and they band together to keep their space home they have made for themselves from falling apart and they'll continue to do so. They/We/Whatever are actually quite good at it. In the meantime, the tiny numbers this new 'style' of warfare requires, causes one thing in particular (or that I can see anyways) People stop logging in, particularly people (or alts) that are specialised into flying larger, bigger, heavier (and largely unneeded) ships. You might argue that this is all fine and dandy and given enough time, this trend will cause the evil sov holders to lose people while nothing actually changes. So yay, now there are fewer people playing the same game as before (with less reloading and cycling guns) and nothing has really changed anything and don't get me wrong, I am not saying that dominion sov was any better but at least it brought more 'people' 'together' and made the whole thing feel more alive than it has since the dawn of the sovlaser. So split your 40 man cerb fleet into 5-10 small squads and oh look, you can defend 5-10 systems at once! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
mydingaling GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2015.08.22 15:15:25 - [969] - Quote Antylus Tyrell wrote: mydingaling wrote: You can join MOA right now and live safe as a baby in your uncontestable 0.0 stations complete with profitable mission agents. All the benefits of 0.0 with none of the risk. I absolutely love that this is a new goon talking point. You do realize that anyone can dock in that station, even you? If you collectively whine enough you might get CCP to remove NPC stations, but then MOA would just farm you from a lowsec staging system. You should ask CCP to make a CFC only server, so you can do what you like to do without outside annoyances. I'm fine for MOA to stage from lowsec though i'd rather see them have their own piece of 0.0. That was the point of the new nullsec small footprints & projection changes yeah. So have at it. Pirate mission agents should be a 0.0 reward and appear in capital stations depending on appropriate high sov levels indexes whatevs. It would provide content for a lot more people that are bored out of their minds running anons and a good incentive for peeps to come out and carve a 0.0 niche for themselves. I have no need for CCP to make a CFC only server I want 0.0 to be less safe, risk vs reward and all that. 'Burn it all to the ground' should be the 0.0 mantra. Literally all my stuff is in a conquerable station in delk and i'm totally onboard with you all destroying it.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6817	Posted - 2015.08.22 15:52:56 - [970] - Quote mydingaling wrote: I'm fine for MOA to stage from lowsec though i'd rather see them have their own piece of 0.0. Well give them some sov and don't just use them to transfer the stuff. Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16945	Posted - 2015.08.22 16:35:09 - [971] - Quote maybe CCP should make is so that sov holders who own stations can stop anyone they don't like docking there. That should give them a pretty big tactical advantage when disputing ownership of their space. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2349	Posted - 2015.08.22 16:59:51 - [972] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Kiandoshia wrote: Sentamon wrote: Malcanis wrote: You don't need 40 Cerberus Heh, people bring overwhelming numbers and can't figure out why people don't stick around to fight. Mind boggling. That's not the point. People bring overwhelming numbers because people show up. The way a fleet like that is formed is pretty simple. Things to shoot shows up > Call goes out > People join fleet, depending on the amount of stuff and what kind of stuff needs shooting, those fleets become quite large quite quickly. If it is about shooting a bunch of interceptors that are applying sovlasers to things, there will likely be a smaller turnout than when somebody comes rolling through with a group of battlecruisers (bad example, nobody flies those anymore, but an example nonetheless) The main complaint from big evil sov holders is that the current iteration of sov warfare is more boring than what we previously had in place and this is ridiculous, considering what we previously had in place involved shooting massive hitpoint pools which is probably the most stupid and boring gameplay design in the history of grinds. Someone has managed to iterate on that and make something more boring! They said we'll give you a sov system that's fun for everyone. I am seeing none of that and I wont for one second believe that the small gang types are enjoying what is happening. They might enjoy 'us' whining about it because they have been drilled to enjoy that, just like we have been drilled to enjoy it when they mess up and get 3 cruisers killed. Oh and yes, sov 0.0 is largley full of carebears, if that's what you want to call them. They organise and they band together to keep their space home they have made for themselves from falling apart and they'll continue to do so. They/We/Whatever are actually quite good at it. In the meantime, the tiny numbers this new 'style' of warfare requires, causes one thing in particular (or that I can see anyways) People stop logging in, particularly people (or alts) that are specialised into flying larger, bigger, heavier (and largely unneeded) ships. You might argue that this is all fine and dandy and given enough time, this trend will cause the evil sov holders to lose people while nothing actually changes. So yay, now there are fewer people playing the same game as before (with less reloading and cycling guns) and nothing has really changed anything and don't get me wrong, I am not saying that dominion sov was any better but at least it brought more 'people' 'together' and made the whole thing feel more alive than it has since the dawn of the sovlaser. So split your 40 man cerb fleet into 5-10 small squads and oh look, you can defend 5-10 systems at once! EDIT: look, ask some people to bring Inties. 1 Tackle-focused interceptor (Keres are good too) per squad: all that guy has to do is land point on a speed-capped, self-tackled ship. Then split RLML cerbs up equally between the interceptor squads (If you have 8 ceptors in a 40 man fleet, then create 8 squads and assign 3 RLML cerbs to each one.) Even if the troll has half a dozen friends in frigates waiting to surprise you, 3 RLML cerbs will mince them easily. Look at this; gets to warp in 3.6 seconds, goes at 3km/s overheated (only 1km/s slower than the entosis troll can possibly move now), shoots CN Scourge Light to 113Km, locks out to 130km. [Cerberus, Troll-away] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Warp Disruptor II Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II The problem really isn't defending the systems but that argument seems to be lost on everyone in this thread. The problem is that fozziesov is literally more boring than shooting HP pools.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 12174	Posted - 2015.08.22 17:29:18 - [973] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: The problem really isn't defending the systems but that argument seems to be lost on everyone in this thread. The problem is that fozziesov is literally more boring than shooting HP pools. Not 'everyone'
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2350	Posted - 2015.08.22 17:47:15 - [974] - Quote Well, they wanted my experience with it.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1627	Posted - 2015.08.22 18:30:37 - [975] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: And since there was so many complaining about the amount of space players owned, but not used, it made sense they would make the new Sov some form of occupancy based, which they did. And that is all they really did. If you actually live in the space you claim, it is not hard to maintain it. "Occupancy" was codeword for "let me kill a couple of belt rats and double the EHP on my ihub". If anyone thought CCP would take the meaning of "occupancy" literally they would have kept their rmouth shut about it.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 1144	Posted - 2015.08.22 21:50:04 - [976] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Kieron VonDeux wrote: And since there was so many complaining about the amount of space players owned, but not used, it made sense they would make the new Sov some form of occupancy based, which they did. And that is all they really did. If you actually live in the space you claim, it is not hard to maintain it. "Occupancy" was codeword for "let me kill a couple of belt rats and double the EHP on my ihub". If anyone thought CCP would take the meaning of "occupancy" literally they would have kept their rmouth shut about it. It's not so much that. My only problem with the current occupancy model, is that it only takes a few minor factors into account. Time held, rats killed, rocks mined. That's it. They really need to roll PI, jobs in build, and perhaps reactions (I'm a little more leery of this one) into the industry index. The military index could be tweaked to include completion of scanned sites as well. The issue is that under this current iteration, "occupancy" means, "rats and mines here", and nothing else.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2351	Posted - 2015.08.22 22:26:56 - [977] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Kieron VonDeux wrote: And since there was so many complaining about the amount of space players owned, but not used, it made sense they would make the new Sov some form of occupancy based, which they did. And that is all they really did. If you actually live in the space you claim, it is not hard to maintain it. "Occupancy" was codeword for "let me kill a couple of belt rats and double the EHP on my ihub". If anyone thought CCP would take the meaning of "occupancy" literally they would have kept their rmouth shut about it. It's not so much that. My only problem with the current occupancy model, is that it only takes a few minor factors into account. Time held, rats killed, rocks mined. That's it. They really need to roll PI, jobs in build, and perhaps reactions (I'm a little more leery of this one) into the industry index. The military index could be tweaked to include completion of scanned sites as well. The issue is that under this current iteration, "occupancy" means, "rats and mines here", and nothing else. Yes, it is all a little half arsed but meh. If you look at it that way, you could come up with an endless list of things that needs looking at.
Kieron VonDeux 70	Posted - 2015.08.23 04:51:00 - [978] - Quote I do believe they plan on expanding what applies to occupancy significantly in the future(Soon). Yes, I know. But I can't remember where I read that. I think it was a reply in one of the earlier Sov feedback threads.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6817	Posted - 2015.08.23 09:27:23 - [979] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: I do believe they plan on expanding what applies to occupancy significantly in the future(Soon). Yes, I know. But I can't remember where I read that. I think it was a reply in one of the earlier Sov feedback threads. This sort of assurance is reminiscent of my experiences with Fozziesov! Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Buhhdust Princess Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 9142	Posted - 2015.08.23 09:49:37 - [980] - Quote We like fozziesov. Provided us with a decent amount of content so far, so as a small-med gang warfare alliance we have been smashing it. Also... indexes are hard to grind? Lol get out indexes are a piece of **** to grind.

Darus Thorn Hells Bunnies Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.08.23 22:31:05 - [981] - Quote Really, really boring! Would much rather shoot a structure. Will not be fitting a link to any ship now or in the future and will not be participating in this ridiculous sov system. Hope they change it back soon.
Carrie-Anne Moss The Scope Gallente Federation 477	Posted - 2015.10.16 10:29:54 - [982] - Quote Hey guys. I'm trying to buy Recon amd HAC skillbooks. They are like 35mill each. Can someone help me out please and bum be a small bit of isk to help afford these skillboaks so I can start their long trains to 5? Thank you very much
Rod Blaine Gilded Goose Brokerage 15	Posted - 2015.10.16 18:07:44 - [983] - Quote Haha, sov. I remember having sov, Delve, Fountain, Querious. ******* boring. Never will improve, since stationary life sucks. Hence: quit trying to make sov the endgame and aim for an endgame that has depth over mass. Quality over quantity, and in more than just skill training or bling fits: aim for a balance that favours the smart and intelligent over the just organised and dedicated


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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.