| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Vlad Draculesti
Catastrophic Overview Failure
Brave Collective
44
   |
Posted - 2015.08.16 23:43:12 -
[541] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:+1
Despite people whining that this relates to rental income, the OP is right. This system puts null holders on the defensive during vulnerability timers, which undermines the ability to fight for content elsewhere.
Which is why you get to set your vulnerability timer to when you are active. If you are unable to defend your space during the period of time that your alliance is most active means that you do not deserve to live in that space.
a lot of the tears being generated here is a direct result of people holding space that they do not have the numbers to defend.
The obvious solution is for them to get with the program - cut down on all the empty space that they cannot defend and either fill it with Renters that will actively use the system or just relinquish the space - allow randoms to move in then tell said people pay us security money or we'll blap "your" space.
Again - if you cannot defend the space you have laid claim too - you do not deserve to keep it. |
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 23:46:38 -
[542] - Quote
Vlad Draculesti wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:+1
Despite people whining that this relates to rental income, the OP is right. This system puts null holders on the defensive during vulnerability timers, which undermines the ability to fight for content elsewhere. Which is why you get to set your vulnerability timer to when you are active. If you are unable to defend your space during the period of time that your alliance is most active means that you do not deserve to live in that space. a lot of the tears being generated here is a direct result of people holding space that they do not have the numbers to defend. The obvious solution is for them to get with the program - cut down on all the empty space that they cannot defend and either fill it with Renters that will actively use the system or just relinquish the space - allow randoms to move in then tell said people pay us security money or we'll blap "your" space. Again - if you cannot defend the space you have laid claim too - you do not deserve to keep it.
You're missing the point.
If you set your timers to when you are most active, all of your guys are sitting in their space, on the off chance someone comes to take it. However, no one's coming to take it, because everyone else is doing the exact same thing. You see the problem here? |
Inquisitor Tyr
Phantom Squad
The Blood Covenant
74
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 23:48:25 -
[543] - Quote
Introduction:
Every problem you sited is exactly the way it is supposed to work.
- It limits mega alliances from controlling vast swathes of space
- It allows low SP players to participate in the best part of EVE.
I agree, there are some minor tweaks needed.
Conclusion:
Some xxDeath guy is just mad because he cant keep his slave-ling rental alliances running without doing any real work!
@ the OP - go fly a kite. |
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 23:50:17 -
[544] - Quote
That's funny, coming from a guy who's alliance head is a signatory.
Looks like you might be in with the wrong crowd chief. |
Inquisitor Tyr
Phantom Squad
The Blood Covenant
75
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 00:17:33 -
[545] - Quote
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:That's funny, coming from a guy who's alliance head is a signatory.
Looks like you might be in with the wrong crowd chief.
"If there are two people in a room and both of them agree, then one of them is useless" - Mark Twain.
Thankfully, there are lots of people in our crowd that have different perspectives. |
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
1124
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 00:23:12 -
[546] - Quote
Inquisitor Tyr wrote:Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:That's funny, coming from a guy who's alliance head is a signatory.
Looks like you might be in with the wrong crowd chief. "If there are two people in a room and both of them agree, then one of them is useless" - Mark Twain. Thankfully, there are lots of people in our crowd that have different perspectives.
Fair point, though one would expect an alliance head to speak for the whole, or at least the majority. Such is why we do not have a signatory, even though many of our members are outspoken critics of this terrible sov iteration. |
Budsin Adar
Blue Angel's
Joint Alliance Blue
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 00:24:33 -
[547] - Quote
Even myself I don't live there, but i do agree with what has been spoken to all of FozzieCCP. Before all Hell breaks loose. The way FozzieCCP Sov is set I agree with the null sec people. The thing is doing so as is will and can be a pain. But they do have the same rights as if you attacked the pos or sov structure. When they have there own personal gates then that speed can be set or reduced depends on ship . What wrong with large fleets fighting is a node totally seperate from the high sec grids which still can be felt needs to be fixed. What was said here I am in total agreement personally. Everyone in Null sec has there rights to be heard but hey don't ever limit the fun. what ever it is they all want to do!!. If a war comes i can see all of them ganging up on CCP I know the battle would be harsh But CCP realise this they will hunt you down and tear you to shreads. So do you want an all out war? hmm i bet not!!! |
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Eternal Pretorian Alliance
152
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 00:27:56 -
[548] - Quote
Vlad Draculesti wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:+1
Despite people whining that this relates to rental income, the OP is right. This system puts null holders on the defensive during vulnerability timers, which undermines the ability to fight for content elsewhere. Which is why you get to set your vulnerability timer to when you are active. If you are unable to defend your space during the period of time that your alliance is most active means that you do not deserve to live in that space.
You obviously either didn't read my post, or lack the capacity to comprehend it. My point was that timezone overlap means active alliance remain in their home systems during vulnerability timers to defend rather than roaming around to fight. Everyone being on the defensive during their busiest time zone generates a lack of content.
EDIT: Just read further. Good to see I wasn't unclear, because Gallowmere obviously understood my point. |
Mike Thalos
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Circle-Of-Two
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 01:05:34 -
[549] - Quote
+1 |
Mai Khumm
Toronto EVE Online
679
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 01:43:02 -
[550] - Quote
I'm out of popcorn!
**** sakes, I need more popcorn!!!
Toronto EVE Thread!
[email protected]
@Toronto_EVE
(ALT of CO-Host Azami Nevinyrall)
|
|
|
John Wolfcastle
Galactic Cargo Inc.
Crying Clowns Foundation
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 06:25:07 -
[551] - Quote
I just checked some things:
1. On a activly used (and therefore fully upgraded) system, the vulnerable time window is 3hours big (devblog once mentioned 4hours).
2. On a fully upgraded system, entosing something takes around 60minutes.
3. According to Devblog, everyone in system gets a message + notifcation about the attack.
So you don't have to sit all the time and wait to defend these objects. Having one or two alt-scouts in system should be far enough to catch the message of an attacker to call back part of the fleet, it doesn't always have to be one big bulk of ships for everything.
Counternumbers:
1. Totally unused system (beside moon-mining) takes 10minutes to entose.
2. Totally unused system has a vulnerable timewindow up to 18hours.
"You didn't need that space anyway", that's why it's so hard to defend. |
infectuz SR
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 06:44:14 -
[552] - Quote
+1 to the original Post |
Covert Cynosural
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 08:42:43 -
[553] - Quote
I like Fozzie Sov
You guys in 0.0 shouldn't have that much space and power. Let smaller alliance's have some too |
Aventus Klapto
An My
BLUE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 08:49:04 -
[554] - Quote
Covert Cynosural wrote:I like Fozzie Sov
You guys in 0.0 shouldn't have that much space and power. Let smaller alliance's have some too
Good luck. Have you tried to take Sov in a standard 'small alliance' in FozzieSov. It's not going to happen, unless it's dead, worthless space that isn't worth the time of day contesting. |
Prock Landers
12 Monkeys-Roughnecks
The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 08:50:20 -
[555] - Quote
Add me and my alliance to this petition.
But i believe we wont accomplish anything with it.. CCP got what they wanted with this.
Stable servers. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1815
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 09:43:57 -
[556] - Quote
UAxDEATH wrote:Sovereignty is absolutely unprotected against sov trolling
No, it's unprotected if you leave it unprotected.
Frankly I find your list of "demands" followed by an "or else" to be infantile and utterly unbecoming for a memeber of the CSM, even if you were a second choice/step up.
Start acting like an adult and stop being part of the problem.
|
Andrej Minni
North Wind Inc
Legion of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 10:53:18 -
[557] - Quote
+1 |
Kanzero
Virtus Crusade
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 10:59:06 -
[558] - Quote
There are some good points, mainly:
- entosis should stop a ship or at least shut its prop mods. That would remove most trolls. / important
- in game interface where all data is visible at a glance / somewhat important
- reducing the number of nodes / possibly important |
blueskydragonFX
Burning Skies
Apocalypse Now.
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 11:08:20 -
[559] - Quote
I support this as a Provi-Block member.
Since this new sov mechanic there's been few big fights in Provi. Goons didn't show up to take Provi with the new mechanics prove enough that the mechanic is broken and non rewarding. All the large scale battles in Eve have come to a halt. Normally a hostile fleet would ref a hub/station to get the attention for a huge fight but now all you have to do is send a a small detachment of snipers to take out the ship that Ethosis the structure and be done with it.
CCP, in the past you made good decisions and bad ones. Like the Production/Research Teams, which you guys removed after it being a complete failure. Rethink about this sov mechanic because it's killing your players with boredom. Eve24News has rarely reports of huge battles since this new sov mechanic and are now reporting that Provi is being camped by hotdroppers (which we have always been :3)
You're killing the player base with all of this.
Fozziesov
Jump Fatigue
Massive decrease in null to null wormholes
Stop messing up your player base and listen to them. Don't be like the politicians of this world because everyone hates politicians. |
Hinamori Tsesuda
13th Reserve Squadron
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 11:58:08 -
[560] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Hinamori Tsesuda wrote:... but hey were you actually using those systems?... Yes, we are. Now try think of all the ways that we do that aren't mining or ratting. Give you a hint to start you off; there are other infrastructure hub upgrades.
Like what? Industry, moon harvesting, WH and stuff like that?
Go ahead, but you own that system only as much as you are willing to defend it and keep it populated.
If you don't like troll-ceptors... Too bad :)
o7
|
|
|
Gallowmere Rorschach
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
1128
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 12:26:32 -
[561] - Quote
Covert Cynosural wrote:I like Fozzie Sov
You guys in 0.0 shouldn't have that much space and power. Let smaller alliance's have some too
The problem with this statement, is that it makes you out to believe that there is this group of underprivileged players who just wish they could take some sov of their own. Spoiler alert: there isn't. If there were, we wouldn't be making money hand over fist with the new rental model.
This actually appears to be becoming even more true, now that players are seeing just how awful these new sov mechanics are. Those who want sov already have it. The rest will continue to be dead systems, because there is no reason for anyone to invest the effort and resources into taking and holding them. Trollceptoring is easy. Holding space after the fact is still at the whim of anyone bigger who doesn't want them there. Your small alliance that can field 50 guys? What do you think would happen if we decided we didn't like you, and rolled through with a few hundred trollceptors?
Yeah, exactly. Nothing has been fixed. It's just been made somehow more mind numbing than structure shoots. |
Pierre Cheriende
ICE is Coming to EVE
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 12:39:55 -
[562] - Quote
As a simple minion i support this petition |
Zajian
Shadows of Earth
Spears of Destiny
8
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 12:40:42 -
[563] - Quote
I support this Petition.
It shows problems, and also solutions for known problems in neraly every 0.0 space.
Hopfully CCP will hear. |
Turboauspuff
107th Suicide Kings
Nihilists Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:09:33 -
[564] - Quote
+1 |
Arcelia Kaundur
Endgegner.
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:23:50 -
[565] - Quote
CCP will not change this, with this sovchange you have to use your brain for once and not throw everything you got at it.
This looks like a desperate way to avoid loosing sov.
This game needs some fresh air and it wont happen with all the same alliances holding sov...it gets boring. And it does not change by reversing the changes and turn the own sov inpenetrable fotress. Sov changes were made to see some progress in Sov, and this sov is made to make your chair wobble, because currently there is absolutely no progress in sovchanges and thats a stagnation ccp wont allow. |
Icycle
Dissident Aggressors
Mordus Angels
107
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:31:35 -
[566] - Quote
Fozzy sov is a great change for eve. Most of the space in the drone region have so much unused systems that you cant count them. You dont need that much space. If you want/need it, be prepaire to defend it. But dont whine cos you dont have the numbers or the will power to do many jumps each night to defend systems you dont live in. I dont feel sorry for you at all.
Big blue blobs is a disease in eve and alliances that hold on to space that they dont live in only feeds this. It stagnates the game.
I do also support for ccp to add the tools in game to support fozzy sov changes and not having to relly on other external apps.
Fozzy sov is the best thing that could have happened to eve. I only wished it was done 5 years ago. Eve would have not been this dead end blue garbage thats turned to. This is suppose to be null and most dangerous part in space. In reality you should be at risk of losing space all the time. Like any front line, it will always get shelled and must have a no mans land!
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1363
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:34:46 -
[567] - Quote
I have lived in nulsec since 2009. I do not support this petition. Do not speak for me.
The community which OP represents are the worst of the worst when it comes to actual content. They would have CCP revert to Dominion sov, which supported and even mandated vast sprawling empires of unused space, with massive fleets of SP-heavy capital ships jumping across the galaxy in minutes.
Many of the signatory alliances of this petition are historically known to be the worst offenders of botting and RMT. The true intent of this petition is clear for anyone that has played Eve Online for long enough. They wish a return to farming nulsec with vast armies of bots fueling their alliance coffers and/or their rl bank accounts.
So no. I do not and will not ever support this kind of blatantly and obviously self-serving petition and implore CCP to flat out ignore it.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Brocken Rocker
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:45:18 -
[568] - Quote
I don't support this petition.
CCP is right in changing the gameplay for some fresh air.
Their will be more stratetic descisions in defending and attacking SOV.
I think, all of this big alliances are feared, cause they have to split their strike-forces and have to rationing all the Sov-Systems to get a greater defense-bonus.
That means they have much work.
That's them an eyesore.
CCP, please hold your course for the SOV-Changes! I support your decisions! |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:45:54 -
[569] - Quote
-1
Screaming self-entitlement.
But let's take it down anyway, I love doing that:
1) "critically reduces chances for large scale fights"
You mean like... blue donut? I'd say this is a critical increase compared to blue donut. So no, this is bs.
2) "harassment towards any sov owner"
Like all the griefers have been telling me all the time "it's not harassment cuz CCP said so". Cope with it, fella.
3) "interface tools"
+1 for that point (and for that point only). Tools are lacking indeed. Doesn't justify the rest though.
4) "potential exploit"
You gotta be a real optimist if you think the new sov system would come in without an exploitable bug or two. Report a bug, petition when it's used against you - no harm till it's fixed, no harm after.
5) "doesnGÇÖt regenerate back"
Seems like semi-valid post for F&I as a balance suggestion, but hardly requires a petition.
6) "notifications"
While I somewhat agree that only sending a notification is not sufficient, I am severely against adding names to it - because it opens stupid capabilities like mass convo trolling. The rest **** about the names should go to 3) - interface tools.
7) "transfer sov"
Like all the griefers have been telling me all the time "why do you think you're entitled to safe mining?". Right back at you - "why do you think you're entitled to safe sov transfer?". It's a part of the game now that if you wish to transfer sov, there must be a window of opportunity for people to screw with it, and I think fozziesov is an improvement on that.
tl;dr Adapt, bubba. And thanks for your contribution to my tear bucket. |
Good Apollo BS4
Valar Morghulis.
Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 14:48:45 -
[570] - Quote
+1 don't necessarily agree with the suggested changes to correct, but anything is better than the current system. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 22 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |