|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2683
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 12:15:28 -
[1] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Rain6637 wrote:Entosis feels very artificial as a game mechanic, but I realize there has been a lot of development and code and effort all around to bringing it into the game. I'd prefer it went away completely, but that's probably an unrealistic expectation. I think we will see a citadel-like damage cap make an appearance in sov structures after it has been validated after release. Probably something like Asher's idea about ADM affecting EHP. But it would be a shame to see guerilla tactics disappear entirely.
What you call guerrilla tactics I started calling a big game of ding-dong-ditch a few months ago. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2696
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 20:55:01 -
[2] - Quote
Xeno Szenn wrote:I think having a window is part of the issue. the old system had no window so the window is actual a bouns to the defender then again i don;t live in sov.
The window is a 2 edged sword. Whoever play out of that window is pretty much free to do whatever he wants while the people who's playtime is in-line with the windo currently gets to run around chasing no-commitment doctrine around. There is next to 0 benefit to committing for an attacker anyway because you gain next to no effectiveness in your attack. Every fleet I have been on to "save" timers, win or lose, the end comments from the player are the same depending on something completely different than if the objective was met.
If the enemy had nothing but no-commitement ship doing the attack, everyone is bored out of their mind because nothing happen, It's warp-warp-warp-warp-warp and stragglers from both side getting killed usually because of their own misstakes. If a fleet show up, people are happy even if we lost it because the timer was fought over.
With iteration to the game every ~6 weeks possible right now, trying for a single cycle to "force" a committed attack one way or another and then see how each side of the coin feel over it, we might actually get some steps done toward a better product. Roll back the change the next iteration if it's a disaster. I'm pretty sure people won't get completely butt mad if CCP shows they are trying to check what could work better for everyone. Hell maybe people don't want to commit more because they feel it's not worth more but CCP would probably benefit from learning that if it's the case.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 13:42:28 -
[3] - Quote
Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 15:27:40 -
[4] - Quote
Kryptik Kai wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it? Something something "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game" Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. You (SMA) chose systems to claim. You chose the vulnerability windows. You're part of the largest coalition in the game. Get your shtako together.
Those comments coming from PH who didn't even defend 1 systems and moonwalked out BEFORE the announcement of our attack was made is pure gold. Can't you see the system at least have issue when your alliance decided to pack up and leave instead of even trying to defend it's systems? Why was reddit so proud of this? Was that move OP what you call "getting your shtako togethers"? I really want to know if you think that's how it's supposed to be done. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 15:48:46 -
[5] - Quote
Kryptik Kai wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Kryptik Kai wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it? Something something "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game" Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. You (SMA) chose systems to claim. You chose the vulnerability windows. You're part of the largest coalition in the game. Get your shtako together. Those comments coming from PH who didn't even defend 1 systems and moonwalked out BEFORE the announcement of our attack was made is pure gold. Can't you see the system at least have issue when your alliance decided to pack up and leave instead of even trying to defend it's systems? Why was reddit so proud of this? Was that move OP what you call "getting your shtako togethers"? I really want to know if you think that's how it's supposed to be done. You're talking about the bastard children of a nomadic alliance... in less than a year we've moved several times. What gives you the impression sov for us is more than just a place to hang our hats? Also, not sure why its "gold" as I don't recall us complaining about sov mechanics. If we had whined and were now making fun of SMA for whining then sure... but... nope.
Of course you didn't complain since you didn't even try it. I think both side of the system are bad. Running to every boor bell in defense is stupid and being able to burn down an entire region in a week sound just as stupid to me. The entire thing right now has 2 way doing it. You completely overwhelm your opponent and burn his **** to the ground in one relatively quick way or you play ding dong ditch often enough to make their patience burn away. The system was supposed to prevent weaponized boredom but it's still a strategy people can employ. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 15:56:25 -
[6] - Quote
Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: I hear a lot of complaining from someone in a group that literally coined the term weaponized boredom. Your arguments are essentially moot because you have used similar tactics to dictate the engagement against your enemies in the past.
Also, because this type of gameplay does nothing for you doesn't mean it is not enjoyable to others. Sure, having daily timers that you need to respond to is exhausting but that is sov warfare. HTFU and deal with it.
Even your solutions are pretty cringeworthy. You essentially bringing back the N+1 formula that CCP worked on taking away.
tldr; stop whining, HTFU, and do what everyone else in Eve has to do (figure this **** out).
You do realize the current offensive strategy being used is just another N+! right? Instead of bringing N+1 ships, N+1 timers will be created and one side will decide it's not worth all the time burnt on it. The fact that generating a stupid amount of timer was used before does not mean it was not wrong back then and now. Just that nothing was made correctly to prevent this behavior from being effective. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 16:56:18 -
[7] - Quote
killerkeano wrote:HMmmmmm juicy CFC tears. so tasty
you reap what you sow.
The issue I have with post like that is that it means I am not allowed to think as an individual. My though are supposedly always associated with my corp and alliance tag even if I have some position that would more than likely be against what the leaders think. I don't know if other corp/alliance have a line of post to follow or other stuff like that but I surely don't follow one and really hope you don't have to follow one either.
TBH, I'n not unhappy toward any player currently playing the game how it is right now. This stupidity is the name of the game now so anyone not playing it like that would be shooting himself in the foot for no reason. Using weaponized boredom is effective so of course people will use it. The real question to me is, why the hell they they make a system where such terrible strategy cans till be used.
When the CFC back in the previous SOV demonstrated that boredom could be a weapon, I though it was both a creative way of using the rules AND dropping a turd on the game in plain view. Doing it right now in the new way of doing it is just the same thing. It's using the rules how they are written while also shitting on the system. Both are just as bad imo. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 17:12:53 -
[8] - Quote
Xeno Szenn wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Xeno Szenn wrote:CCP should never limit people working together. I don't fly with the imperium but ccp should not break it apart just becuse it exsist. That would be a death sentance for the game. That's what people are leaning toward though. They like these mechanics because it allows even single players to pose a realistic threat to big groups because they hate the idea of a big group. Nothing any big group does really has an impact on other players, before I rented then joined the Imperium big groups existed but had absolutely no bearing on my day to day gameplay, but some people just can't handle the fact that these groups exist and it's those people these mechanics cater to. Thankfully I think CCP knows it's bad play and entosis has a limited shelf life. Entosising is deffernt then an artifical reduction of a groups ablity to work togther. entosising something dosn't mean sma cant work with the imperium anymore. If everyone can plau in sov then entosising is the best system we have right now. If not everyone can play with sov brinig back needing suppercaps. either way i'm fine with it. I'm currious though how many people do you think it should take to attack sov at a minimum?
I always though you should need a few cruiser or something like that personally since not being able to mount up a fleet like that essentially mean there is no way you could keep a system anyway so there is no point in letting you take one.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 17:29:39 -
[9] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:Yun Kuai wrote:Kuetlzelcoatl wrote:Maintain less Sov. This and more this. If you're complaining about the number of timers then you're holding on to too much space. Less space, less to defend, more time to unblue yourself from the blue doughnut, more time to actually PvP in the "lawless" space that is nullsec. P.S. FW is vulnerable for 23.5hrs, 7 days a week and can be attacked by any and all ship types. You don't hear us complaining about that. That's the entire reason we're in it in the first place.
Being vulnerable 23.5/7 is not as bad as it looks when you realize even with all stars aligning for you, it will still involve many hours to take a system. You can easily let the other side PLEX to 75% and then send a fleet and fight over the rest. If we leave that much time in SOV, it's over, the structure got hacked and the system fell. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 17:42:42 -
[10] - Quote
Nigerian Banker Prince wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: I hear a lot of complaining from someone in a group that literally coined the term weaponized boredom. Your arguments are essentially moot because you have used similar tactics to dictate the engagement against your enemies in the past.
Also, because this type of gameplay does nothing for you doesn't mean it is not enjoyable to others. Sure, having daily timers that you need to respond to is exhausting but that is sov warfare. HTFU and deal with it.
Even your solutions are pretty cringeworthy. You essentially bringing back the N+1 formula that CCP worked on taking away.
tldr; stop whining, HTFU, and do what everyone else in Eve has to do (figure this **** out).
You do realize the current offensive strategy being used is just another N+! right? Instead of bringing N+1 ships, N+1 timers will be created and one side will decide it's not worth all the time burnt on it. The fact that generating a stupid amount of timer was used before does not mean it was not wrong back then and now. Just that nothing was made correctly to prevent this behavior from being effective. The current mechanics didn't invent this. All of the old mechanics had the same thing. Pre-Dominion sov had towers. You put down as many as you could if you were the defenders and dickstar them. At that time it would literally take a day or longer just to RF enough of the towers to contest one system. The defenders could set up all the dickstars and start evacing stuff or setting up ambushes. This current sov mechanic is much much much better than that. Now you are complaining because the defenders have to send out small gangs to hunt attackers that are entosising as much stuff as they can. Here is a hint.....if you cannot send out enough dudes to kill the entosis peeps or set up effective choke points, then you don't deserve your space.
Last time I checked, we were still winning most of the timers so we would still be able to send enough dude. That does not mean the system is a good one. I still think reinforcing 40 structure at the same time or SBUing 20 system was playing the rules in a stupid way but I can't do anything about the past. It's stupid and was stupid because in both case, an actual takeover of all of this was and is only possible if the other side fail-cascade so you no longer need your fleet together. The rest is just fluff to **** off the other side and force them into clean-up OPS because is slowly but surely drain his will to play this game. In all of those case, you were not beating your enemy by fighting him but by fighting his resolve to play a game in an un-fun way.
The new SOV system was slated to be a move against that. Since it has now been demonstrated that it didn't work, I think iteration should be discussed/worked on. Unless people are gonna say it's ok now. I mean, if people are OK with weaponized boredom, then the game should stay like that but I think it's a stupid way of setting up a game. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 17:50:40 -
[11] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:killerkeano wrote:HMmmmmm juicy CFC tears. so tasty
you reap what you sow. The issue I have with post like that is that it means I am not allowed to think as an individual. My though are supposedly always associated with my corp and alliance tag even if I have some position that would more than likely be against what the leaders think. I don't know if other corp/alliance have a line of post to follow or other stuff like that but I surely don't follow one and really hope you don't have to follow one either. TBH, I'n not unhappy toward any player currently playing the game how it is right now. This stupidity is the name of the game now so anyone not playing it like that would be shooting himself in the foot for no reason. Using weaponized boredom is effective so of course people will use it. The real question to me is, why the hell they they make a system where such terrible strategy cans till be used. When the CFC back in the previous SOV demonstrated that boredom could be a weapon, I though it was both a creative way of using the rules AND dropping a turd on the game in plain view. Doing it right now in the new way of doing it is just the same thing. It's using the rules how they are written while also shitting on the system. Both are just as bad imo. "It's funny when we do it to other people, but now that they're doing it to us it's becoming old hat and nobody should do it anymore."
WRONG.
It was never good gameplay or fun. Other people might have though it was but not I. It was an efficient one and still is but that's still isn't good. If you think I was ok with weaponized boredom before, then you are not comprehending what I am trying to say correctly. It might be my english but I really never though it was good gameplay. Not playing should never have been and never should be an effective strategy to the game. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 18:00:13 -
[12] - Quote
Nigerian Banker Prince wrote:
Yes you are winning most timers....but your allies are dying internally in the process. The whole weaponized boredom isn't a 'oh it's okay now' sorta thing....it is a 'you reap what you sow' sort of thing.
I know the organisation is effectively reaping what they sow. I do not condemn anyone for doing it. It's efficient gameplay to achieve an objective and EVE has always been about using whatever mean to achieve what you want. What I will condem is who made the system how it is since it once AGAIN enable a form of play that is again beating the opposition out of boredom.
I honestly wish nobody ever even had the though that they should bore their opponent to death in game. It's like someone invented cancer and now we can't get rid of it. Cancer was **** back then and is still **** right now. Please god rid us of cancer and kill it every single time anyone find a new way to re-create it, be it my friends or my enemy. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 18:38:31 -
[13] - Quote
Nigerian Banker Prince wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Nigerian Banker Prince wrote:
Yes you are winning most timers....but your allies are dying internally in the process. The whole weaponized boredom isn't a 'oh it's okay now' sorta thing....it is a 'you reap what you sow' sort of thing.
I know the organisation is effectively reaping what they sow. I do not condemn anyone for doing it. It's efficient gameplay to achieve an objective and EVE has always been about using whatever mean to achieve what you want. What I will condem is who made the system how it is since it once AGAIN enable a form of play that is again beating the opposition out of boredom. I honestly wish nobody ever even had the though that they should bore their opponent to death in game. It's like someone invented cancer and now we can't get rid of it. Cancer was **** back then and is still **** right now. Please god rid us of cancer and kill it every single time anyone find a new way to re-create it, be it my friends or my enemy. I agree with you on all points....but sadly I don't remember you or many other Goons (if any) making these statements when the system was in their favor. That is why most of these arguments are moot and also why there is a lot of hostility towards CFC members here in this thread. Sure you make good arguments but because you are on the receiving end this time, they seem hypocritical.
I was not there during siege fleet for example. I get your feeling tho. I really wish more people would recognize it was just as stupid back then. This game has problem that might never get solved correctly because the "winning" side of the issue usually is to smug to admit they are winning because it's broken. The current fun/hours battle is probably WAY in horde and co's favor and they will probably milk it for all they can because it's how people EVE. You never know when you will be on the receiving end of it. People instead should just be mad about any systems that are like that because it does not make for a great game anyway. The memorable event of EVE didn't happen on night were blueballing was going on. Nothing really great happened in EVE while one side was docked while the other side did a clean-up operation while thinking why they even logged to this boring game of rep the tower, rep the station, burn the SBU and other stuff like that. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2708
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 19:32:24 -
[14] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:CFC weaponized boredom, so CCP made the mechanics boredom based. Now the CFC are complaining that their enemies are using boredom.
Is bootiful.
The real stupid part is that the game goal steered many player toward this. No limit on engagement number leads to blobbing. Loss being meaningful leads to blueballing if you don't think you will win. Some of the task required to maintain an empire being underwhelming on the fun factor leads to burnout being an effective strategy.
Combine all of that together and you somehow gets the most effective strategy to "win" at this game.
Entossing nodes is just a replacement for repping/grinding structures at the end of a timer we had before. Who really loved repping structures before? Probably the ones who currently don't mind defensive entosis fleet because it's the same thing at the end of the day. You activate a module on a single target with auto-repeat until it's marker is full. You do this with a fleet covering you and the other side can, at their leisure, decide if they engage or just let the other side do the boring work. You can also repeat this cycle over and over again pretty much forcing the other side into boring work a nearly infinite time.
At the end of the day, we changed system to accomplish the exact same thing. We are still shooting/repping "flags". |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2717
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 13:05:26 -
[15] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Get rid of sovereignty as a formal game mechanic. In other words, delete TCUs from the game. There would be of course many many repercussions of such a move - but it's the ultimate form of Occupancy SOV.
Leave the TCU there but just make it and the I-HUB ownership flip according to what happens in a system. PvP kills, PvE, mining, everything. THen it really become an occupancy based SOV system instead of this abortion where occupancy only really give you a bonus for the flag capping real game. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2718
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 00:10:16 -
[16] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Leave the TCU there but just make it and the I-HUB ownership flip according to what happens in a system. PvP kills, PvE, mining, everything. THen it really become an occupancy based SOV system instead of this abortion where occupancy only really give you a bonus for the flag capping real game. There is a downside to IHUB flipping mech the way I see it - it doesn't incentivise people to blow the thing up except in situation when people who invade a system aren't looking forward to settling there. I'm not sure if hardware not going boom more often is within EVE philosophy and/or economical model. On a side note, when CCP declared sov changes, I was actually expecting this kind of thing instead of what we have ended up with.
If you have to do something meaningful in that system to work toward the ownership of it, stuff will end up going boom at some point unless the space is not worth the effort. If the space isn't worth the effort, then you have a different problem on your hands to deal with. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2725
|
Posted - 2016.04.04 23:06:09 -
[17] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Sure, using small ships to harass has always and will always be a thing, but using a single small disposable ship to actually contest soc, that's new, and dumb. Lucas Kell wrote:That's because small groups who don't hold sov or don't care about the sov they hold aren't negatively impacted, so why would they complain? They get to cause a massive reaction and risk losing one ship to do it. So it's not really new, and if it has always been a thing?
You could do harassement by hunting ratters/miners but not contest SOV itself. Nobody was going around SBUing a system with a T1 frig. They would not DPS down a station or an ihub either. You could always do "something" in small ship but not to the level you can now. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2725
|
Posted - 2016.04.05 12:23:28 -
[18] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Aiwha wrote:They don't want to hold space. I would not call it success of Fozziesov if it is only cool for those who "don't want to hold space".
That dosen't fit the narrative tho. |
|
|
|