Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Icycle
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
118
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:19:06 -
[721] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: Sov didn't do much, but news articles of epic battles with $300,000 in damages did and those battles occurred because of committed assets in null. Those types of battles will no longer occur under the current system since people no longer need to commit assets to take sov.
So you have acknowledged that B-R5RB was an event that was by a mistake of an FC and also by the alliance not paying sov. Before that, all the battles were reasonable and the difference was not as high. Large battles have been happened in eve for years. The difference is that before there was a lot less blues and a lot more drama. Not there is a lot more blue and a lot less drama.
Its very simple! LESS Blues, more DRAMA, more FIGHTS! MORE Blues, less DRAMA, less FIGHTS!
What drives eve is not CCP its PLAYER DRAMA. Thats the really explosive combustion!! PLAYER DRAMA. The reality is that everyone is happy so stay at home and make isk and not engage in big fights. At MOA we are trying to change that We are trying to make you lose territory and brake up with gobly blob of blues thats hurting the game so much.
Icycle wrote: They may not have had a reason to start the fight, but the mechanics are why the fight escalated. Fights will invariably be because group A can't deal peacefully with group B and often because of resources (see the entire fountain war), but thanks to the new mechanics, when that happens no big battle occurs. We have people now citing 60b in losses as an epic scale battle. That's horrendous to be quite honest.
In a convensional world how do you fight a number thats over 50 times larger than you? You have to change the way you think and you got to provide tools to do it that are not present in the game, its the only way. The other way is another DRF. But with so many blues I doubt it will happen. Its the blue donut that is the desease and all the shady agreements that I wont fight you if you dont fight me...Or we will only kill ships, no structure shooting etc. Its all the bs that this blue donut brought. I guarantee you if the gloves are for for real and its all in, you will look at your neighbour and say hmm, nice moon goo, i will take it.
The only feasible other way I think to really destroy the blob will be moon goo respawning in different regions of eve. This will signal the end of blues but you will be living like a nomad in null chasing the goo. That maybe too drastic ...I cant seriously see anyone fighting for anything if they got no chance of wining it specially with so many blobs. They will all have the same idea instead that you mentioned above. I will sti at home and make isk. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:20:53 -
[722] - Quote
afkalt wrote:To be fair, those battles could happen (virtually) tomorrow if the players wished it to be so. They could, but they won't. Big battles cost isk. Why would players throw that down if they stand to gain little to nothing regardless of the outcome?
afkalt wrote:The reason they do not, is players currently value ownership of space pixels over blow-out levels of fun. No, it's simply easier to have fun in ways that don't involve throwing billions of isk away. People don't need to commit isk to attacking, so they don't. Effectively you guys are saying it's fine for some tiny alliance to put nothing on the line to contest sov with no chance of actually taking it, but big alliances should literally throw away trillions of isk to create content for no gain. No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff while null continues to stagnate.
Warmeister wrote:the only reason those battles occurred is because people stuffed up.
most of the times what happens is that one of the sides looks at the opponent, decides it's not worth the risk and punts the timer. Those battles occurred because a group wanted something and committed to it. Another group committed to defense and then the fight escalated until one side could afford no more escalation. What they've removed is the need to commit and thus the need to escalate the fight. These will now only happen if people actively seek a giant battle which will be rare.
afkalt wrote:The ENTIRE alliance jump clones? Stops playing? Really? You think that's not a win for you? Not the entire alliance, but enough players just evade to make the entire act pointless. Propaganda aside, we don;t play this game to watch other people not play, we play to be entertained. It's not entertaining to idly sit around while your opponents refuse to play.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:25:28 -
[723] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:i'm not trolling i just figured that i'm entitled to respond to stupid ideas with another stupid idea. Then explain why you feel it's a stupid idea. You stated yourself that it's for defenders not showing up. If they don't show up, it doesn't matter if you are in a bloody Orca, you're safe. The only reason to use an interceptor is for if they DO show up, so you can run away.
Warmeister wrote:the thing you said about 'conflict should be driven' is whole load of crap. there are plenty of other ships that have been used prior to fozzisov that could evade capture. there are plenty examples where fleets decide not to engage and just run from the attacker. Name one that could single handed contest sov. Ia have no problem with interceptors existing, I have a problem with their ability to contest sov. Contesting sov should take commitment, it's an alliance level activity after all.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Icycle
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
120
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:26:36 -
[724] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Troll status confirmed. The only reason to being an evasion fit interceptor is to evade. All of this horseshit about it being against defenders who don't show up is ridiculous.
The point is that undefended sov should be easy to take. When a defender shows up though then conflict should be driven. Interceptors mean that players can assault sov with no intention of fighting and no intention of taking sov. It's dumb. i'm not trolling i just figured that i'm entitled to respond to stupid ideas with another stupid idea. the thing you said about 'conflict should be driven' is whole load of crap. there are plenty of other ships that have been used prior to fozzisov that could evade capture. there are plenty examples where fleets decide not to engage and just run from the attacker. why don't we just ask CCP to equalise the speed of all ships and disable warp drives of everyone in the system for 5 minutes once someone new enters. how's that for a conflict driver?
lol i can already see a few "scout pods one day old" account been created for this purposes |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1838
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:28:33 -
[725] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:afkalt wrote:To be fair, those battles could happen (virtually) tomorrow if the players wished it to be so. They could, but they won't. Big battles cost isk. Why would players throw that down if they stand to gain little to nothing regardless of the outcome? afkalt wrote:The reason they do not, is players currently value ownership of space pixels over blow-out levels of fun. No, it's simply easier to have fun in ways that don't involve throwing billions of isk away. People don't need to commit isk to attacking, so they don't. Effectively you guys are saying it's fine for some tiny alliance to put nothing on the line to contest sov with no chance of actually taking it, but big alliances should literally throw away trillions of isk to create content for no gain. No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff while null continues to stagnate.
No. I am not saying that at all.
YOU are the one blaming the lack of big fights with the new system. YOU are the ones refusing to start them YOU are the people putting isk ahead of fun whilst moaning about fun.
What I am saying is your complaints about big fights and a lack of fun have exactly nothing to do with the new system.
Currently (and correct me if I am wrong) there has been exactly one fight for a system which was actually of interest to both parties and >gasp< it was NOT contested with frigates and lasers!!!! Who could have predicted.
Quote:No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff
This, right here, THIS is why you have issues finding fun. Fights are awesome, as long as someone else does the dying, right? |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
699
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:28:46 -
[726] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Warmeister wrote:you are quite right. it's not zipping around in interceptor that gives the ownership, it's failure of defenders to show up. if an entity wants to hold space, they need to dedicate themselves to it, and show up for defense. it shouldn't be based on defender sitting docked up protected by gazillions of HP Then why not make it so entosis modules can only go on a a BC or above? If the defenders don't show up, then ship type is irrelevant. The only reason people want to use interceptors is so they can run away when defenders do show up. Tell me I'm wrong. you are wrong. why not complement it with a rule that defenders can only attack the ship that runs entosis with exact same ship class, and only one person can attack. if that person dies, entosis ship is granted full immunity until he finishes entosising structure War, I think it is time you went to bed.. Your reply just makes no sense and comes across as a very poor troll attempt. Get some sleep - Get some perspective. Lucas has a good point. Undoubtedly the strongest "command link" in the game, SHOULD be designed to fit ships with the roles to fit command links.
If not straight out restricted to ships that can fit command links, at least give those ships a bonus to Entosis links. Could be easily done by increasing the amount of Stront needed by X2 or even X3 - Ceptor can still fit and use an Entosis link but will need at least 1 friend with him to feed him fuel.
Does anyone really want to be stuck playing "interceptors online" for the next few years. Drakes online, Supers online, Ishtars online and now Interceptors online.
Why not give battle cruisers a role in sov? The only reason to not do it would be because "trolling" is by design, the new meta Devs are encouraging. Pity interceptors + sov = conflict avoidance - Negates a few of the stated goals for the new sov.
Without Entosis links Interceptors could in fact have an even more integral role in sov - Tackle ships, which oddly enough, is a role at which they excel.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
471
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:29:12 -
[727] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote: I'm getting plenty of fights in my alliance thanks. And I'm not the one complaining about a lack of content or fights. I was referring to the posters who are complaining about having no-one to shoot while surrounded by blues.
Damn that must have been one tough solo pvp myrm, 34 of eves best to kill him. Now that's some pretty awesome content right there.
You've been on eight killmails in over two years, and six of those were Pocos.
Considering you less than stellar pvp record, you might want to be a bit more selective in who you sneer at.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:29:55 -
[728] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Name one that could single handed contest sov. Ia have no problem with interceptors existing, I have a problem with their ability to contest sov. Contesting sov should take commitment, it's an alliance level activity after all.
torp bombers your coalition used to grind sov during fountain and halloween wars that could cloak as soon as someone enters local, and that can move via covert cynos.
and before you say 'but it was more than one person' think whether there would be any difference to your crying if your opponent brought 50 inties instead of 1
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:31:04 -
[729] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:afkalt wrote:To be fair, those battles could happen (virtually) tomorrow if the players wished it to be so. They could, but they won't. Big battles cost isk. Why would players throw that down if they stand to gain little to nothing regardless of the outcome? afkalt wrote:The reason they do not, is players currently value ownership of space pixels over blow-out levels of fun. No, it's simply easier to have fun in ways that don't involve throwing billions of isk away. People don't need to commit isk to attacking, so they don't. Effectively you guys are saying it's fine for some tiny alliance to put nothing on the line to contest sov with no chance of actually taking it, but big alliances should literally throw away trillions of isk to create content for no gain. No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff while null continues to stagnate. No. I am not saying that at all. YOU are the one blaming the lack of big fights with the new system. YOU are the ones refusing to start them YOU are the people putting isk ahead of fun whilst moaning about fun. What I am saying is your complaints about big fights and a lack of fun have exactly nothing to do with the new system. Currently (and correct me if I am wrong) there has been exactly one fight for a system which was actually of interest to both parties and >gasp< it was NOT contested with frigates and lasers!!!! Who could have predicted. Quote:No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff This, right here, THIS is why you have issues finding fun. Fights are awesome, as long as someone else does the dying, right?
One? More like one per day. Come south, we're already past the entosis 101 here. Gewns did not even start yet. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1838
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:32:19 -
[730] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Does anyone really want to be stuck playing "interceptors online" for the next few years. Drakes online, Supers online, Ishtars online and now Interceptors online.
Because it WONT be.
For the Nth time....the (as far as I know) only seriously contested timer was last night and the field was...
Machariels T3s HACs
Not a single ******* trollceptor to be seen. Imagine that, when **** gets real people escalate quickly. |
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:33:11 -
[731] - Quote
Icycle wrote:So you have acknowledged that B-R5RB was an event that was by a mistake of an FC and also by the alliance not paying sov. Before that, all the battles were reasonable and the difference was not as high. Large battles have been happened in eve for years. The difference is that before there was a lot less blues and a lot more drama. Not there is a lot more blue and a lot less drama. No, larger battles occured because of the need to commit. That need hs been removed.
Icycle wrote:Its very simple! LESS Blues, more DRAMA, more FIGHTS! MORE Blues, less DRAMA, less FIGHTS! Stop being special. That's not how it works. At some point a group will always rise to the top and others will work together to bring them down. That's the great social aspect of the game. What you want is to make it so that one person is able to cause as much damage as a whole alliance because you're terrible at collaboration.
Icycle wrote:The reality is that everyone is happy so stay at home and make isk and not engage in big fights. At MOA we are trying to change that We are trying to make you lose territory and brake up with gobly blob of blues thats hurting the game so much. Well you're failing, especially since you're supporting changes that make it EASIER for us to stay at home and not engage in big fights.
Icycle wrote:In a convensional world how do you fight a number thats over 50 times larger than you? You have to change the way you think and you got to provide tools to do it that are not present in the game, its the only way. The other way is another DRF. But with so many blues I doubt it will happen. Ask BL, they did a pretty good job of causing significant damage. You harp on about your killboard, but BL did more damage to the Imperium in a single fight than you guys have done in the history of your existence. You guys think too small and that's why you can;t see how damaging these changes are to your cause. I guarantee once the dust settles you'll suddenly realise how easy it is for us to res on our laurels.
Icycle wrote:Its the blue donut that is the desease
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2115
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:35:17 -
[732] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Name one that could single handed contest sov. Ia have no problem with interceptors existing, I have a problem with their ability to contest sov. Contesting sov should take commitment, it's an alliance level activity after all. torp bombers your coalition used to grind sov during fountain and halloween wars that could cloak as soon as someone enters local, and that can move via covert cynos. and before you say 'but it was more than one person' think whether there would be any difference to your crying if your opponent brought 50 inties instead of 1
TBH, both case are extremely stupid and a proof that game mechanics are bad... |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1125
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:35:30 -
[733] - Quote
it is amazing how many people without two brain cells to rub together look at a viciously competitive game where you win or die, see that people playing it to win don't do X, and then assert that people playing to win should just do X instead of that the mechanics are flawed
i suppose if you've never won, you don't really 'get' playing to win |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
699
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:38:45 -
[734] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote: I'm getting plenty of fights in my alliance thanks. And I'm not the one complaining about a lack of content or fights. I was referring to the posters who are complaining about having no-one to shoot while surrounded by blues.
Damn that must have been one tough solo pvp myrm, 34 of eves best to kill him. Now that's some pretty awesome content right there. You've been on eight killmails in over two years, and six of those were Pocos. Considering you less than stellar pvp record, you might want to be a bit more selective in who you sneer at. Yeah and this is an alt.. So whats your point. Doesn't change the fact you are an F1 blob bot who thinks 34 vs 1 is good content and something to brag about.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:38:48 -
[735] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: TBH, both case are extremely stupid and a proof that game mechanics are bad...
but you didn't see anyone crying to CCP to nerf bombers so that they couldn't shoot structures, and all alliances that wanted to have fun actually used doctrines with more expensive ships.
this isn't any different |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:39:43 -
[736] - Quote
afkalt wrote:No. I am not saying that at all.
YOU are the one blaming the lack of big fights with the new system. YOU are the ones refusing to start them YOU are the people putting isk ahead of fun whilst moaning about fun. No, we're not. We're saying there will be no big fights as there's no REASON to start them, and we are having fun by avoiding the mechanics. The mechanics suck beyond belief, so we simply won't use them where we can avoid it.
afkalt wrote:Quote:No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff This, right here, THIS is why you have issues finding fun. Fights are awesome, as long as someone else does the dying, right? ROFL. So here are 2 options:
1. Have fun, keep stuff. 2. Have fun, throw away stuff.
Which would you pick? I'd always pick 1, since stuff leads to more fun later. You're literally stating that we should throw stuff away to make big fights, even though the level of entertainment for us will be the same. We gain no additional entertainment and no progress in the game by having big battles. If CCP want to remove big battles, that's up to them, we are simply pointing out that in the long run it will end badly.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1125
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:40:09 -
[737] - Quote
question from an idiot: "if you want more challenging fights, why don't you pointlessly and needlessly cripple yourself instead of waiting for ccp to fix the game?"
obvious answer: there is a reason i pay money, and ccp earns money: it's their job to fix the game and it's my job to win it |
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:41:57 -
[738] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:question from an idiot: "if you want more challenging fights, why don't you pointlessly and needlessly cripple yourself instead of waiting for ccp to fix the game?"
obvious answer: there is a reason i pay money, and ccp earns money: it's their job to fix the game and it's my job to win it in other words you just want your 'i win' button, so you can keep pressing it at your leisure? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:42:22 -
[739] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:torp bombers your coalition used to grind sov during fountain and halloween wars that could cloak as soon as someone enters local, and that can move via covert cynos.
and before you say 'but it was more than one person' think whether there would be any difference to your crying if your opponent brought 50 inties instead of 1 So a single torp bomber on it's own could contest sov could it?
And no, I'd be fine with 50 interceptors. In fact I'll say that now.
CCP, my suggestion is either: a) require a BC or above for entosis links or b) require 50+ interceptors to run an entosis link.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:44:18 -
[740] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: TBH, both case are extremely stupid and a proof that game mechanics are bad...
but you didn't see anyone crying to CCP to nerf bombers so that they couldn't shoot structures, and all alliances that wanted to have fun actually used doctrines with more expensive ships. this isn't any different Uh yes you did. You still do. People complain about stealth bombers all the time and did moreso during fountain.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
48
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:45:24 -
[741] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Uh yes you did. You still do. People complain about stealth bombers all the time and did moreso during fountain. really? show me where i was crying to ccp to nerf bombers? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1838
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:46:18 -
[742] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:We're saying there will be no big fights as there's no REASON to start them
Which is of exactly no relevance whatsoever to sov mechanics, whatever they may be.
Lucas Kell wrote:afkalt wrote:Quote:No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff This, right here, THIS is why you have issues finding fun. Fights are awesome, as long as someone else does the dying, right? ROFL. So here are 2 options: 1. Have fun, keep stuff. 2. Have fun, throw away stuff. Which would you pick? I'd always pick 1, since stuff leads to more fun later. You're literally stating that we should throw stuff away to make big fights, even though the level of entertainment for us will be the same. We gain no additional entertainment and no progress in the game by having big battles. If CCP want to remove big battles, that's up to them, we are simply pointing out that in the long run it will end badly.
Good lord your argument is confused indeed. You're bitching about a lack of big fights and in the same breath saying they are the same amount of fun as not having them. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6590
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:53:53 -
[743] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:really? show me where i was crying to ccp to nerf bombers? I didn't say you cried, I said you saw people crying.Lucas Kell wrote:Warmeister wrote:but you didn't see anyone crying to CCP Uh yes you did. Comprehension, it's a thing.
afkalt wrote:Which is of exactly no relevance whatsoever to sov mechanics, whatever they may be. Except of course where it has everything to do with sov mechanics, since they are the primary conflict driver (or should be) in a competitive ownership system.
afkalt wrote:Good lord your argument is confused indeed. You're bitching about a lack of big fights and in the same breath saying they are the same amount of fun as not having them. That's not confused. My level of fun will not change whether I have big fights or not, but the amount of people interested in playing EVE will. I think your confusion comes from the fact that you can't comprehend someone having an opinion about something that isn't selfishly driven by what's in it for them.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Icycle
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
120
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:00:54 -
[744] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: No, larger battles occured because of the need to commit.
You only comit if its worth to comit or if its fun. Otherwise you stay at home making isk, which is what you do. You said it above already. I dont care about isk. Nobody is going to comit to a big fight knowing you are outblobbing them and they stand a chance to lose it all unless you are looking for fun. Right now there is nobody near to CFC to do this. I doubt there is anyone in game even. CFC has becomes its true enemy.
Lucas Kell wrote: Stop being special. That's not how it works. At some point a group will always rise to the top and others will work together to bring them down. That's the great social aspect of the game. What you want is to make it so that one person is able to cause as much damage as a whole alliance because you're terrible at collaboration. I think you are the one that think you are special and your holly empire of renting or isk making should not be touched...
who are you to tell me what should work how? In fact who are you to tell eve what? I do what I want to do. I am not going to play by your strenght but by mine!
Lucas Kell wrote: Well you're failing, especially since you're supporting changes that make it EASIER for us to stay at home and not engage in big fights.
You form up every day the anti entosis fleets to chase us down. We have captured serveral system. You got to blob us every night cos we fail so much. We have failed
Lucas Kell wrote: Ask BL, they did a pretty good job of causing significant damage. You harp on about your killboard, but BL did more damage to the Imperium in a single fight than you guys have done in the history of your existence. You guys think too small and that's why you can;t see how damaging these changes are to your cause. I guarantee once the dust settles you'll suddenly realise how easy it is for us to res on our laurels.
Yeah and no. BL has not been able to do much besides every time it does you pay them off to go away. I agree that MOA need to ramp up their numbers and think bigger. If you look at our forums, you will see I have not been shy about it in any way! I am one of the voices that says this all the time. You can ask Massa or Gen, I am sure they are tired of hearing it
But you got to also admit, that its is not sufficient. If it was that simple BL would already own half your space! So there is something more here that stops even entities like BL to take over your space.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1838
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:11:54 -
[745] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:afkalt wrote:Which is of exactly no relevance whatsoever to sov mechanics, whatever they may be. Except of course where it has everything to do with sov mechanics, since they are the primary conflict driver (or should be) in a competitive ownership system.
I didn't think I'd need to spell out that the sov CAPTURE mechanics do not matter a damn, yet here I am....
The fact no-one has a reason to go contest sov is NOT a fault with aegis, rather null itself. It is a completely different discussion.
It has already been shown that even with current sov, when two parties both want the same thing, a fight happen. And it is not nano-nonsense either.
Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you. |
Qui Binder
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:14:48 -
[746] - Quote
Kystraz wrote: So they became CSM members without being voted in by large numbers of players who agree with their viewpoints?
Is that what you're trying to say?
They had large numbers of players who voted for them, that is true. It's a huge leap from there to say that they agreed with their viewpoints.
CFC and other large nullsec alliances agreed to vote for each others candidates in order to 'fix' the election. CFC sent out a filled in ballot and asked every pilot to vote that ballot with every account exactly, that order, thus ensuring that the CSM will be overly represented by pilots from large nullsec blocks. CFC pilots were asked to vote for candidates that were in red (hostile) alliances, because they had agreements that those red alliances were going to ask their pilots to vote for the CFC candidates.
It's cute that you think the CSM was elected by people who took the time to review the candidates positions and make independent selections. Don't let go of that naive optimism. |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
471
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:22:35 -
[747] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote: I'm getting plenty of fights in my alliance thanks. And I'm not the one complaining about a lack of content or fights. I was referring to the posters who are complaining about having no-one to shoot while surrounded by blues.
Damn that must have been one tough solo pvp myrm, 34 of eves best to kill him. Now that's some pretty awesome content right there. You've been on eight killmails in over two years, and six of those were Pocos. Considering you less than stellar pvp record, you might want to be a bit more selective in who you sneer at. Yeah and this is an alt.. So whats your point. Doesn't change the fact you are an F1 blob bot who thinks 34 vs 1 is good content and something to brag about.
An alt, thats what all the worthless scrubs say. Post with your main or get knotted.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2115
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:25:54 -
[748] - Quote
Qui Binder wrote:Kystraz wrote: So they became CSM members without being voted in by large numbers of players who agree with their viewpoints?
Is that what you're trying to say?
They had large numbers of players who voted for them, that is true. It's a huge leap from there to say that they agreed with their viewpoints. CFC and other large nullsec alliances agreed to vote for each others candidates in order to 'fix' the election. CFC sent out a filled in ballot and asked every pilot to vote that ballot with every account exactly, that order, thus ensuring that the CSM will be overly represented by pilots from large nullsec blocks. CFC pilots were asked to vote for candidates that were in red (hostile) alliances, because they had agreements that those red alliances were going to ask their pilots to vote for the CFC candidates. It's cute that you think the CSM was elected by people who took the time to review the candidates positions and make independent selections. Don't let go of that naive optimism.
Just like political party in democratic country, the election in EVE went to the side who were able to get their supporter to vote while many candidate were un-able to get to vote for them to happen.
Also, while a ballot is suggested in most large alliance, nobody can really be held to follow it. It's not like I'm un-able to vote for whoever I want just because I have a [CONDI] tag beside my name.
The biggest reason why the high-sec candidates rarely make it is mostly because the vote they rely on is diluted on so many different candidate instead of being concentrated. Nobody is able to rally their vote under a single or few banners. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
699
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:26:16 -
[749] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Does anyone really want to be stuck playing "interceptors online" for the next few years. Drakes online, Supers online, Ishtars online and now Interceptors online.
Because it WONT be. For the Nth time....the (as far as I know) only seriously contested timer was last night and the field was... Machariels T3s HACs Not a single ******* trollceptor to be seen. Imagine that, when **** gets real people escalate quickly. So out of the hundreds and hundreds of created timers, ONE was seriously contested - and you see that as a good step forward?
NB; The ceptors were there, they did their thing after the fight ended.
Escalate quickly? It was little more than staged, all parties knew who was coming and when. One 3rd party even turned around and went home after, I believe, misunderstanding what they were told by those they were to have been fighting.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
bigbillthaboss3
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
84
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:30:01 -
[750] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you.
Jesus was this your first big fight in EVE Online: A Spaceship Game ? You keep harping on this one single conflict. Single. As in a value of one. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |