|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 03:50:54 -
[1] - Quote
Reagalan wrote:The only solution to the problems of Fozziesov is to scrap the whole thing, return to Dominion sov, and iterate upon a proven system. And here I thought it was really encouraging that the biggest problems Team Five-0 figured they had to address to tweak the new Sov system weren't even problems.
Even all the stuff (in your rather wall-of-text rant) is either untrue, or not a problem.
You talk Sov not encouraging bigger fights, but earlier in the same post talk about chasing off interceptors with larger forces.
You complain about empire size based on military pressure, as if Sov doesn't do that right now.
Or complaining about imaginary meta behind node capture, seemingly just annoyed that .... there is a preferable strategy?
Or, and I can't believe you put this in an actual post, complaining that Sov sucks because it's possible to regain systems.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
77
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:31:21 -
[2] - Quote
Marcus Covinus wrote: Iteration 1: Tower Sov
***
Iteration 2: Dominion Sov
***
Iteration 3: Aegis/Fozzie Sov
I think what you've missed is that in each iteration, there were two bars to pass.
One was the mechanical. As you stated, you couldn't take down a tower with an Interceptor.
The other though, was the defence. You also needed enough ships to take down the sov holder.
Sov has just lowered the mechanical bar - it hasn't touched the defence. For all the whining about absentee attackers, it doesn't get pointed out enough that Aegis has removed the opposite: absentee defenders no longer require a Dread fleet investment to take down some arbitrary millions of HP. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 18:52:43 -
[3] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:[What part of "capture of uncontested sov should be doable with a single frigate" in goals of fozziesov you don't understand? Out of curiosity where was this stated as a goal? Seems like a pretty silly goal for what is an alliance level mechanic. Seems pretty reasonable actually. Taking Sov has a near zero mechanical barrier, so the burden of Sov defence is borne entirely by the defenders. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 21:27:30 -
[4] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Yeah, so on one side of the fight, the defender has an entire solar system on the line. On the other side, the attackers have a frigate. Doesn't sounds very balanced. So... you're concerned that frigates have zero chance to take a defended system?
It's just a confusing statement. If a solo frigate has any chance of taking a system it's because there is no 'defender' for the solar system to be 'on the line' for. Otherwise, the system is no more 'on the line' than if the frigate decided to solo a carrier.
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 03:05:12 -
[5] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's just dumb that it's a threat to sov that needs a response. It allows a frigate to force a defensive response even though, like you say, in a utilised system they have NO chance of taking it, and it means that attackers can put nearly nothing on the line while defenders have their whole system on the line. All of the control is in the attackers hands. While it required far too much commitment from attackers in the old system it now requires far too little. Except the defenders don't have their whole system on the line. The trollceptor has no chance. Against a single frigate all that's "on the line" is 5 minutes out of the life of one of the systems ratters.
I'm sure it's not amusing to have to warp away from your ratting to go deal with somebody sov-ing for laughs. And I'm sure eventually the ratters will get frustrated, and bored, and want to stop defending. Maybe the Alliance needs to put a bounty on entosis attempts. Maybe somebody just needs to multibox a sniper to fend off frigates. Not going to pretend I've theorycrafted the best method of minimizing the ISK/hour impact of defending your space. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 04:23:40 -
[6] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship. Which, perversely, works in the defenders favor. Mittani explains better than I.
Lucas Kell wrote:And you don't see that as a problem? No. The attacker spends 30-60 minutes hacking a structure, the defender spends 5 minutes saying "No, go away." As annoying as it might be fore the defender, it's even moreso for the attacker.
I have no doubt that EVE harbors the right type of personalities to have one side or the other dedicate themselves to those efforts for months. But in order for an undefended system to be vulnerable to a single frigate, a defended system needs to be approachable for that same frigate. And if the result of that is a few dozen ratters groaning in frustration as they get pulled away from their AFK ISK farming for the 4th time this week? I'm OK with that. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
81
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 13:45:35 -
[7] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:The fact that if your indexes are high enough you can ignore another player for 45 minutes, then finally go respond to them, and then either kill them or chase them away, is still not good game play. Eve is supposed to be a fun and exciting game. CCP should be trying to find ways to make content denial the least viable strategy.
Fundamentally, at either extreme of the indexes, Aegis Sov still rewards conflict evasion tactics - and that is why it is not a good system. Lucas Kell wrote:That's not it being an advantage, that simply the reason that it's also boring for the attacker. The attacker still has the full choice of whether to do it and the defender is still forced to respond every time without fail. The point being that it's even more boring for the attacker. And it's entirely the attacker's prerogative to go the trollceptor route. To a certain extent it's like mining to make ISK. Not the most exciting, but if you keep doing it you've got nobody to blame but yourself.
On the other hand, what if the attacker brings an actual fleet to start the Entosis? I think the 60 minute timer is actually pretty reasonable if you find yourself needing to counter a 100 person attacking force. I don't think we're going to see these types of attacks become common until all of the low index space has been "trolled" away, but it's not like the option isn't there.
So while I'm generally not in favor of boring game mechanics, the boring parts of the sov system are either minimal, or outright optional. - Attacking trollceptors spend far more time bored than defenders. - Defenders have the option of multiboxing a defending ship to pre-empt the troll. - The lack of killmaill for a ship that runs away is a completely uncompelling argument. - Even if the troll is successful, an uncontested defence now only take 12 minutes. That's barely longer than defending against the troll, and gives you a few days troll immunity to boot. |
|
|
|