EVE Search - Please reduce the number of SOV timers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Please reduce the number of SOV timers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.11 07:38:22 - [1] - Quote Neadayan Drakhon wrote: or go back to Sov always being vulnerable... never made sense to me to only have windows of vulnerability And go back to actually needing to commit something of value to actually attack it too? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7390	Posted - 2016.03.12 18:20:05 - [2] - Quote 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. Except it's really not that. Timers are boring, this is why the old system sucked and now they've decided to add more timers and even worse, allowed them to be created by a single player. The people pinging sov timers have no interest in taking sov which is dumb. That would be like allowing combat ships to fly in and 1 shot rocks that miners are mining into dust. While it would be hilarious for thsoe doing the oneshotting, it's an obviously broken mechanic. This is no different, people shouldn't have to sit around defending timers every day for people who commit nothing to setting them up and have no interest in actually contesing sov. The key point is this: If attackers do have an interest in it and the sov holder is truly overextended then the sov would get taken. The fact that it isn't proves that either the sov holder can defend it or noone is interested in taking it, thus maintaining less of it wouldn't stop the attacks nor improve the **** mining mechanics they put in for defending it. The basis of the new mechanics are that if a sov holder is overextended they lose their sov, so if that's not happening they are not overextended. Yun Kuai wrote:** 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. FW is gamed to hell for LP and obviously broken, so since you're comparing the two, you are saying you agree then that sov is broken? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7404	Posted - 2016.03.17 12:32:06 - [3] - Quote 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. Not that unrealistic. From the phrasing used around citadels I imagine sov will be part of them and fall under their defense mechanics in the long run. Sequester Risalo wrote: If you are right, then there is no need for a fleet to defend every system. Put 10 guys per system on "entosis duty" and let the others do as they please. Tne OP will then have his entosis free days. Problem solved. Does it need to be explained to you why a game designed to entertain players shouldn't have mechanics which make people stand on "on duty", or can you figure that one out on your own? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7404	Posted - 2016.03.17 13:31:11 - [4] - Quote Sequester Risalo wrote: I know that this spells not fun. But wass the old system any better? Well, yes, it was. There were far fewer times where things were just being timered up for a joke because it took much more commitment to do it and there were more fights revolving around it. Now it's a lot of one on one entosis vs ecm "fights" almost constantly with the occasion minor escalation. The best fights are still being generated around POS attacks which are based on the old system. Sequester Risalo wrote: Will citadels be any better? Having an appointment with a reinforcement timer or watching your one man citadel at given times also holds very little entertainment value. But right now under the entosis system you still have appointments with a reinforcement timer it just takes one dude to trigger it and it takes almost no commitment from the attacker so it happens constantly. Both attacking and defending are effectively mining too which makes it all the less interesting. Citadels will take at least a small force to assault and you'll need to be committed to the fight if you want it to have any impact. Sequester Risalo wrote: Big alliances have the advantage of spreading the unfun parts out across a huge number of players and still complain. 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. In my mind the system should only really benefit attackers who actually want to take sov, so there has to be something that commits them to seeing it through. This whole ringing the doorbell then running away yelling "lol, made you react" thing should actually be documented as a prime example of terrible game design. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7405	Posted - 2016.03.17 15:52:58 - [5] - Quote Paragraphs are your friend. 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. If a wormhole group deployed away from their wormhole, they'd only lose it if someone put in the effort to take it. If a WH group left I couldn't show up in a single frigate and take over the wormhole. Vulnerability windows are only required because they've lowered the bar for attacking sov to a point that without vulnerability windows people who can't field a fleet in all time zones would constantly wake up to find they have no sov. Those windows are to allow geographically local groups to ensure they have a chance to defend themselves. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7405	Posted - 2016.03.17 17:45:28 - [6] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: If it only takes a single ship to take sov is that sov defend? No, but now a single player is enough so a single player is enough to force the defender to respond, every time. If the attacker has no interest in actually taking sov and is sending one person to just ping the timer, that shouldn't force the defender to respond every single time. Citadels have the base damage mitigation you have to reach, so you can't just send one person to shoot it and ahve the defender rally a force to then have the solo pilot run away, so it takes a sligtly larger level of commitment. Xeno Szenn wrote: but they also gave bonuses to the defender in the forum of vulnerability timers. How is that a bonus? SOV already had timers and it also had a significant minimum number of players that had to show up to be a real threat. Xeno Szenn wrote: Again why should you not have to defend your space if it only takes 1 ship to attack then it only takes 1 ship to defend. Why should every single player of any size be able to force a defensive response? A solo player in a frigate should not be a threat to sov. Xeno Szenn wrote: You have 3000+ people in your alliance so taking out alts at least more than 1000 people spread that over a tz you probably have at least 200 people on in all tzGÇÖs except au. So for 10 people attacking you and 10 responding that leaves 190 free to do whatever else. I donGÇÖt see how that eats up all your game time. If IGÇÖm wrong, please correct me on it but taking a small percentage of your numbers to defend doesnGÇÖt seem like an overburden to me. Because it's constant and the mechanics to do it are boring. Plus you keep saying it only takes one, but it doesn't, because at the point the timer is rolling there has to be a defense force sizable enough at the ready in case an actual attack force does show up. On top of which, fighting off an attacker doesn't make them go away and they lost nothing by losing the timer, so they have no reason to not just come back and do it again. It's a game of whack-a-mole and it's completely pointless. To put it simply, if a defender doesn't follow through on a defense they lose their system, if an attacker doesn't follow through on an attack, they lose nothing. How can you not see the imbalance in that? It's like playing poker against someone that doesn't lose their chips when they lose the hand while they still get to take yours if they win. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7407	Posted - 2016.03.17 21:13:48 - [7] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: ItGÇÖs a buff for the defender because now they only have to worry about being attacked a few hours a day instead of every second of the day. Except that was never the case, since you had timers for sov in the old system. You actually know what the old system entailed, right? Xeno Szenn wrote: If a gang is attacking, you then itGÇÖs an attack and something you should have to defend against. A single ship attacking you isnGÇÖt an attack a passive regen will beat it out and you have to do nothing about it. Passive regen won't necessarily beat it out, and there's no way to tell what is a gang and what is a single ship without showing up and finding out. Waiting until they are already hitting it would be a bit late to stage a defense. It simply shouldn't be viable for a single player to attack sov. Xeno Szenn wrote: Just because you find the mechanic tedious and boring doesnGÇÖt mean it isnGÇÖt a fair design if someone takes your space you can do the same thing back to them as well. Except they don't want the space. They can attack space with no commitment because they don't actually want it, so if they catch it, great, they cost you, and if they don't, great, they still wasted your time. Xeno Szenn wrote: As for a new system not using enosis that would be preferable but we work with what we got. Again if they reduced it to three to five days would you be ok with it being vulnerable all day those days? And what system with the current mechanics could you see them being able to commit heavily when the fights are spread out over a few systems and capitals and suppercaps have greatly reduced ability to entosis? I'd rather see the mechanic binned. Reducing timers would reduce how many people have to play with the crappy mechanics but not deal with the ultimate problem they have. Xeno Szenn wrote: I am not saying that a better system isn't possible but with the current system it serves the goal of letting small players own and live in sov. It doesn't really accomplish that though, since the only reason small groups are able to live in sov is because nobody is bothering to play with terrible mechanics to boot them out. If the russians for example wanted a small groups space they'd just move in and it would be theirs. "but they do provide fights and contents so it suits that need as well" Hardly, there's small scraps between tiny ships from time to time but most of the fights are happening either in the same way the used to from grudges like MoA vs Imperium or over moons. "I but beyond that it does serve well for a sov mechanic thats not based around suppers" It' obviously doesn't which is why it's almost unanimously hated by sov holders. Most sov holders think it's either awful or barely passable. Hell, even CCP have pointed out how bad it is. The only people thinking it's great are people with no interest in taking sov just an interest in annoying people who do want it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists spacemonkey's alliance 7407	Posted - 2016.03.17 21:49:53 - [8] - Quote Nat Silverguard wrote: lol, the only reason they do that is because they can do that, as i've said, lazy and incompetent. Nat, would you not agree that anyone too lazy and incompetent to defend their space would lose their space? And that's not happening, so obviously laziness and incompetence is not the problem. Oh, look out, your obvious bias is showing. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7408	Posted - 2016.03.18 07:51:34 - [9] - Quote Zappity wrote: I feel quite conflicted on this topic. On the one hand, I think that people who want to hold sov should be able to do so, and that it should be difficult for them to be kicked, or harassed, out of their space. On the other hand, I think that enormous conglomerations such as the Imperium are fundamentally bad for the game and that sov mechanics which assist in these being broken up are healthy. At least for the moment. I guess that leads to a further question - would the Imperium form under the current sov mechanics? Current sov mechanics favour even bigger groups as the less people you have attacking your space the better. At the end of the day, big groups won't stop forming all the time there's a benefit to cooperation which isn't going away. The only reason it's more pronounced in EVE than in other games is because it's a single shard so there's more players. What I don't understand is why some people think mechanics should be changed to stop other people playing in a way they don't like. And if they did do it, the result wouldn't be good because there's a huge number of people that like EVE being a sandbox and that would be ultimately breaking it. If CCP started forcefully choosing what playstyles were allowed they'd lose a heap of players. Hell, I only have one of my 50 character in the Imperium, so wouldn't; be very affected, but I'd drop all of my accounts and be gone in a heartbeat if CCP started enforcing maximum levels of cooperation. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7408	Posted - 2016.03.18 10:08:05 - [10] - Quote Karishnikov wrote: So what you're saying is you don't like a mechanic because it allows for open ended gameplay. Sounds to me like you are adverse to the very things that make Eve different from all the other pixel generated fantasies. I'm not even sure how you reached that conclusion. You are able to read English, correct? The issue isn't open ended gameplay, it's that attackers don't have to commit anything and can attack sov even if they don't want it. Sov mechanics should a way to determine ownership of space, not a way to allow small groups to force big groups to do repetitive mundane task, and certainly not without having to actually put anything at risk to do so. Karishnikov wrote: Sov is a both a privilege and a liability. I wonder how long it will take to understand this, its not something that was a given right to every person. You don't have an unalienable right to own Sov in this game. Well no, it's pretty much just a liability at this point. And sure, we don;t have an unalienable right to sov and if a player want o attack and take our sov they should definitely be able to. But once again, to do so should require some commitment. The attacker should want to commit because they want the space. As it stand they don't want the space so they don;t need to commit a thing. Karishnikov wrote: Claiming that several hundred pilots beat out the second largest alliance in a broken mechanic that favors defenders just shows entitlement. That's not what's being claimed. What's being claimed is that mechanics to deal with sov are boring and that people are having to spend an unreasonable amount of time defending against players who don't actually want to accomplish what the mechanics are there to do. Zappity wrote: However, empire building is also a valid gameplay goal. I doubt that few would argue that a complete blue donut would be bad for the game so it is a matter of defining the optimal level of consolidation. But don't you understand that's impossible to achieve? Even if the mechanics were changed to limit alliances to 5 corps and corps to 100 members, people would still work together and would always achieve more by pooling their resources than solo players. What's dumb is that these mechanics make sov uninteresting to deal with and make travel a burden, and so they are more likely to create groups of players forming together so they can accomplish more with less individual time spent. Even look at the people attacking us right now, there's multiple alliances and a coalition (including two alliances who are in the top 10 on member count) working together against us because it's easier to do that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7409	Posted - 2016.03.18 14:44:49 - [11] - Quote 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? I imagine the overarching issue is that they've lost sight of what sov is actually for. There's been a big move to crush down power projection and make sov easier to take and no real increase in reasons to take it. While big groups have to worry about dealing with multiple timers, small groups still have to worry about being roflstomped by big groups. The mecahnics are now a mashup of various concepts with no real direction. Personally I still think sov should just be a direct reflection of system activity, so as you mine, rat and kill players in the space, or have things like industry queues and pos modules active you accrue ownership points for the system and if someone else gets more ownership points their name goes on the system and they get associated buffs to income generation/yield, etc. It should just be a reflection of who lives there rather than a beacon you take. That way even for a big group to take over a small groups space they would have to physically live there for a good amount of time before they could flip it and as soon as they leave it would just flip back as activity resumes from the original owner. Times like now when groups like ours are getting hit we'd have to be active and it we just stopped and our enemies were active we'd lose our space and the benefits we gain from it, like we should. But nobody would have to mess around with gimmicky mecahnics. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7410	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:19:38 - [12] - Quote Karishnikov wrote: Too lazy to link quote, but you say there needs to be a level of commitment on the attackers. So prove me wrong on this, but in the last few weeks a full scale deployment has been going on, hangers shifted, markets stocked, logistical routes planned, Intel gathered, targets prepped, Reddit's spinned, and finally people given the keys to burn the sky. What you are experiencing is not a troll weekend entosis brigade. More effort goes into this than the entire state of your alliance, given how this war is going. But I digress, you say there is a lack of commitment, then that may well be the case, but it is not from the opposition. BUT, you also use commitment as in actually wanting the space; now shocker, I want your space, not so I can mine in it or rat in it, but so you can cease to exist as an entity there. This is my commitment towards sov. According to you we aren't defending our space, therefore if the people attacking it were actually committed to taking it from us we would not have it. Defenders have to respond to an attack because when they lose they lose their space, while if an attacker loses he loses whatever ships he chose to send in, which can be as low as a single frigate. It's for this exact reason CCP have scrapped entosis for citadels in favour of damage mitigation that forces a minimum force and likely will move sov into the same system once it's ironed out. And yes, what we are seeing is just an entosis troll brigade, which is why the timers are only being taken if completely uncontested. Just because there's people reddit posting like their lives depended on it doesn't mean anything's actually being committed. If you were suddenly forced to abandon, the committed costs are zero and you would just walk away losing nothing. It's amusing to me that you can't see that the reason you like these sov mechanics are they make it easy and practically risk free for you to force other people to react constantly. The thing is in the long run it would be better all round if you guys looked honestly at it and gave objective feedback and ideas, because at the end of the day CCP are going to deal with it eventually and they'll probably do it the way the usually do by completely trashing it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7412	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:54:28 - [13] - Quote Kryptik Kai wrote: Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. Better for you because you're not interest in holding sov and it allows you to force a reaction for little risk and no real commitment. For people actually wanting to hold sov it just makes the process uninteresting and reduces deployments because it's basically impossible to travel to an enemy without leaving your space wide open. The only way is to have even more blues and resign yourself to the fact that some of them will be stuck on home defense while others are off having fun. The old system at least required a committed attack force and allowed deployments. Plus it generated international news which is a plus. I don't see any of the major news outlets doing an article about us lot waving our wands. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7413	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:26:37 - [14] - Quote Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: Have you stopped and considered that your coalition literally developed the prototype of this kind of warfare? Weaponized boredom and all that? You are complaining about multiple harassing attacks that are designed to weaken and exhaust the enemy.....a tactic the CFC has used itself? We've done a lot of things and because of that mechanics have in the past been changed for the better. Weaponized boredom was always a terrible concept and you can hardly justify it becoming an actual game mechanic on the basis that we did it once. Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: You say that the attackers won't lose much more than the ship they are flying but what about their time? Oh heaven forbid you have to spend your time defending but you never really put much thought into the time the attackers have put into attacking. All players have to spend their time doing things, that's still not a committed cost. If they lose the timer they don't go "oh no now I can't play for X days" they just go "oh well" and go ping another timer. Sov attacks should take an equal commitment from both sides. If the defender loses they will lose their space, if the attacker loses they should also lose something. Previously that was sunk costs, but now there are very few costs. Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: If you cannot handle the amount of timers you currently have, then reduce your sov. Become smaller/more manageable. If you cannot handle the attacks that are happening, then leave sov and regroup. You are not some special butterfly where you get to have the mechanics changed because you don't like them. TEST, IRON, D2, BoB, LV, BRUCE, and countless others got removed from Null over even worse mechanics then what we have now. Seriously....quit your b******** and deal with it. We obviously can handle it, that doesn't make it fun to do, but then it's fairly obvious you have no interest in the actual game mechanics being entertaining - probably because you're too busy RMTing to consider the entertainment value of games. And mate, the mechanics will get changed. CCP have already declared entosis to be such a terrible mechanic that it's been rejected from citadels, and I imagine when citadels roll round and sov structure get merged in they will be based on the newer damage mitigation mechanics. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7414	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:53:55 - [15] - Quote 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. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7414	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:16:27 - [16] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: 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? Depends on the sov. If someone is legitimately never in their space and has no intention of defending it, I don't even have a problem with one guy doing it, it should just take some level of commitment to it. Defenders have to respond because if they fail they lose their sov, so attackers should also have to put something on the line they risk losing if they lose or abandon the attack. It wouldn't have to be a sunk cost, but they should have something that means running away has consequences. Like I said in an earlier post though, I think the way it's done is terrible. They should just scrap the additional mechanics and just base the owner of a system on all of the activity from the alliance in it, all mining, ratting, player kills, industry jobs, etc. That way to take someones space you have to actually live in it and people who have no interest in sov can't just ping and run away as they achieve nothing. True occupancy sov. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7414	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:21:55 - [17] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: "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." It's actually more like "It was dumb when we used it, which is why it was expected for CCP to remove it, not base a game mechanic on it". Kinda like when everyone went nuts with drone assist, if CCP came out with a mechanic specifically based around that, everyone would have been like The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7414	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:24:43 - [18] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: That system would be intresting actually and let other styles of gameplay hotdops and afk cloaking do a lot to fight a group while giving some counterplay options for the defenders. What would cause the fights though without timers I know form experiance i have to hit something to get a fight no one seems to just want to fight so got to force it. Well as a defender you would have to still use your system, so you'd have to at least put yourself at risk. Attackers would need to actually be somewhat active in the system to take it too. Both sides would need to be active in the same space to progress, so hopefully fights would be generated pretty organically. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7415	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:48:33 - [19] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: it's human nature you cant remove boredoom without making artifical figths. if you have something i want i can chose to fight you or not. if you have something to harras i can or chose to not. when deffending you have to deffend or chose to recapture it latter. it's just the nature of the sandbox moons are an example of this somethimes people fight over them sometimes they reinforce it anfd blueball. Sure you can. If there were a true occupancy sov system, there would be no mechanics to play with so you'd just do whatever it is you do in the space and automatically be contributing. the hing that makes it boring is you've got these specific things to do so one side needs to press the button and the other side needs to stop the button being pressed, so it's always a stalemate over the button. Right now it's entosis, before it was a structure. If it were a true occupancy sov system you'd just do whatever it is you enjoy in that system and if your group had the most activity (and whatever defensive buffer ran down from the opposing groups lower amount of activity) then the system is yours. If the enemy chose to not show up you're still just playing EVE. Dodo Veetee wrote: You don't like the sov system? Don't live in sov. There is NPC null, low-sec FW, non-fw lowsec, highsec, wormholes, thera, a lot of different places for you to go. Yeah, including other games. I don't think CCP actually want to drive out their playerbase by crapping all over the mechanics. The funny thing is prior to the entosis mechanics, small groups cried about the old sov system and apparently telling them to just not live in sov wasn't good enough either. Dodo Veetee wrote: Now if you WANT to play in sov null, then stop complaining like a little *** about sov null. It's this way or the highway. You realise you're only saying this because you're on the beneficial side of the mechanics right? If they were flipped (like they used to be) you'd be bitching on about how unfair the blue doughnut is. Nou Mene wrote:** So whats your point with the post? BTW, no one here does any attempt to understand the other. Personally, I would love to be the attacker (i've have been a few times) and the defender (defender sounds better, no need to gimp fits, guaranteed action, instant reship if i lose) on this entosis thing. Problem with ns would be showing to the big fights... The point is that right now it's pretty awful and stopgap measure would be good. It's like if your tap comes off and you have water spraying all over the ceiling, you don;t just say "oh well the plumber is coming in a few weeks, so we'll leave it till then". You certainly don't get guaranteed action as a defender, unless watching numbers tick by is what you call action. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7416	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:16:22 - [20] - Quote Nou Mene wrote: And maybe the biggest part is that you are in war (losing some say) and being negatively affected by the mechanic, your opinion is bound to be skewed against it. I'll encourage you to do this post when you are a clear winner of the use of the mechanic. But the negative effect isn't coming from the mechanic, they aren't taking sov, the negative effect is coming from the fact that the game is terrible. I'd have absolutely no problem if we were to simply lose all of our space because someone is capable of taking it, but sitting through incredibly boring and badly designed mechanics just makes me wonder what CCP did with their game designers. Globby wrote: classic lucas kell posting lies, misinformation and/or strawmen to make his nullbabby life as easy as possible Classic Globby adding nothing to the conversation. I thought you'd ragequit bro? Zappity wrote: It seems that SMA is holding too much space for their (mostly PvE) members to defend. If that were true, we'd have lost our space. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.18 22:56:52 - [21] - Quote There never was an aura of invincibility, just a bunch of nobodies crying that they couldn't defeat their enemies while refusing to cooperate with other players. Now they've formed up their own coalition they are getting a foot off the ground at least. But that;s not what the complaint is. I don;t really care if we lose all of our space as long as it's entertaining while it's happening. We play games to be entertained not endlessly watch numbers tick down while one dude mines a structure. You're far too busy trying to get you're little insults in to look at the actual quality of gameplay here, but it's dire. We all know this and the only reason some people like it is because of the advantage it gives them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.19 08:58:12 - [22] - Quote Tiberian Deci wrote: I like how anyone who isn't stupid enough to think that cooperating is as easy as saying "OK let's cooperate" is a nobody. We had the balls to stand on our own, we got our **** kicked, and now we're growing and getting better than we used to be. Don't be jealous fam, you can do it too, it just requires hard work and effort. When exactly did you stand on your own? And I'm not talking about people who don't find it easy, I'm talking about these group that actively refuse to then complain because their hundred man alliance can't take sov on their own. That's what there was before the sov changes. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.19 10:02:11 - [23] - Quote Quote: What the hell are you complaining about? The same mechanic now being an official part of the game. Boredom based mechanics are always bad for games as they are designed for entertainment. Yes, people use whatever is available to win, but the general idea is that games move away from mechanics which reduce player entertainment towards ones that improve it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.20 02:13:23 - [24] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: you might not enjoy it but so far in both cloud ring and fade i'm having fun with it. But only because it allows you to complete your goals with ease. It's not the mechanic so much as the results. If they had a mechanic that allowed you to press a button and instantly gain 1b isk which you could repeat 20 times a second for eternity, it'd be fun in the way that you're gaining isk but boring in the way that you're just clicking a button repeatedly. In this case, it's a mining laser on a structure. Xeno Szenn wrote: No system is going to be perfect but the defender is always at the mercy of the attacker does the attacker want to fight that day yes or no. Exactly, but the attacker has to put nothing on the line, while the defender has absolutely everything to lose. How can you possibly not see the imbalance there? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.20 12:09:31 - [25] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: shooting a pos is no different then entosising. Sure it is. Taking sov as a solo player should not be possible, and to see it through, generally isn't. But sov wanding only allows one person to contribute while everyone else just sits there and waits. MMOs that have only one player able to perform a task aren;t very MMO -like. Xeno Szenn wrote: As for it being imbalanced i head no one saying it was imblanced in provi or elsewhere and the general blueballl mechanic is something that has been used forever so part of the game at this point. Provi was proof of this. Split groups being attacked by bother the resident and every other group trying to dogpile in to get them out and still over half the timers trashed in 3 days. Now the mechanics are understood it would be even worse the next time round and the only thing holding people back is the inability to deploy without giving up your own sov. Blueball mechanics have always been bad, but people do what they can to win. People expect CCP to close those gaps though, not to promote them into actual mechanics. Xeno Szenn wrote: with occupancy sov as full occupancy they should remove i hubs and tcu's that way whoever lives there owns it. Granted then anyone can dock anywhere but if you live in an area and are strong enough then nuets in local or station isn't an issue you just kill them. Yup, those structures would not really be needed. Stations would be owned and controlled by whoever owned the system containing them, though I full expect stations to get scrapped in favour of citadels in the long run, in which case they can be put anywhere anyway. Xeno Szenn wrote: The main issues i see with fozzie sov is both sides run more then they fight again it's a part of the game and something i do as well. timers arew the only reason people seem to fight so if you take them away then there would be no fights. Not once have i seen you guys engage unless a timer or cap was on the line. granted if the fights not to my liking i don't fight either so we need someway of forcing fights. That's going to be the case under any mehcnaic. Forcing fights isn't a good idea espeically in game designed to be sandbox, so what they need to do is give a reason to fight strong enugh to get both sides to do it. Defenders have to fight timers to save their space, so that's one side of it, but attackers have no reason to fight, absolutely nothing on the line, so they can just up and run at any moment. That's what needs to be fixed, both sides should have a reason to fight. Full occupancy sov does the opposite though, it gives you nothing if you run and loses you nothing if the opposign side runs, so in order for an attacker to progress they would have to use the system and in order for a defender to keep their system so would they, which promotes organic fights. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7420	Posted - 2016.03.21 08:32:10 - [26] - Quote The problem kinda is with the developers. SMA or not, whatever alliance you are in, sov involves watching one guy firing a mining laser at a structure. The only way to escape that is not to bother with sov, which tells me the sov mechanic is broken since game mechanics are supposed to be designed to be entertaining. As for shark infested, it would be better if that were the case as they would be less likely to run away when people show up for fights. We have basically no chance of losing sov, since whether someone with isk was pissed off or not, to take sov the attacker have to see the timers through. They don't which is basically the whole problem. Attackers spend nothing half contesting the sov then running away. They don't actually want sov since they are just fighting for the e-honor of a guaranteed RMTer anyway, so they don't have to commit to the fight. Defenders on the other had have to commit every time. At the end of the day though CCP know it's rubbish which is why they've already scrapped it for citadels, we likely just have to bear with bad mechanics until citadels are ready to replace them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7421	Posted - 2016.03.21 11:16:58 - [27] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: How about active entosis causing ZERO speed, like a cyno or a seige module? A single frigate can still lazor, but can't run away while doing it. Don't really understand why running away should even be an option when you're contesting something that -should- be meaningful, such as SOV. IIRC, the dev's objective was to award SOV to the side that 'holds the field'. You can't hold the field if you run away, can you? Probably this idea has been discussed several times: if it's bad, can someone tell me why? I don't think it's so much that it's a bad idea, it's just it's trying to find ways around it being generally broken at a fundamental level. You can polish a turd all you want but at the end of the day it's still a turd. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.21 21:57:43 - [28] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: you keep saying an rmter and it keeps getting thrown around but no one offers prof that this is the case There's little other reason to gather up trillions and trillions of isk, the guy has a pretty much perfect laundering system (since he controls logs of who wins) and a higher ratio of IWI bankers have been banned than in the rest of the game (according to Noizy who knows his stuff), and that's if you ignore the direct accusations from multiple sources. I'm not usually one to go with "no smoke without fire" but that's an awful lot of smoke. Personally I think sites such as this put too big a hole in the ability of CCP to trace transactions so should just be shut down regardless - and you can go ahead and check my posting history to see this was the case looooong before the whole SMA v IWI thing before you jump to that assumption. Xeno Szenn wrote: From your point of view, IGÇÖm sure it feels like a siege or a war. From my point of view, itGÇÖs just content and ways to get the fights we want. From my point of view it feels like being forced to play with bad mechanics while enemies run away and cloak up. I'd love a war that brings proper content, these mechanics just don't encourage that, not even remotely. You might be an exception to that, but that's the reality for most people engaged in it. Xeno Szenn wrote: You keep saying the attacker should commit and IGÇÖll quote the Mattanis fireside chat last night GÇ£we owe you nothingGÇ¥. So the question has to be raised why does the attacker owe you anything? They don;t ow me anything, but a balanced mechanic would have both sides put something on the table to fight over. That's a basic principle of games. If only one side has a stake in the game then it's becomes completely one sided. As I sad earlier, imagine playing poker against someone who gets to keep their chips regardless while you always have to go all in. They can play to only win or break even, while you have the potential to lose. Xeno Szenn wrote: I like your idea of citadels being the core of sov if when they were destroyed everything was lost like it would be in wormholes. That system there would be the crux of risk to reward for me because then the attacker has to defend or they lose everything but they get to set the times when they defend. Can that work in a system without etnosis, I hub, tcus, or even your name on the map they could remove all of that fairly easily. And it could be a better system again I wouldnGÇÖt mind fighting in tidi every fleet and having massive fights ever3ytime I log in. I imagine ihubs and tcus will all be citadel modules in the long run. Tidi is less of an issue on the new hardware. Additionally I think null stations (player owned and NPC) will lose a lot of features or go completely so attackers will also need to put their assets at risk to have the benefit of living on a sov owners doorstep. Xeno Szenn wrote: I think instead of having a spin zone or propaganda and IGÇÖm sure my words are being thought of as propaganda as well we need an honest discussion of game mechanics. No matter what mechanics they introduce its going to hurt someone and we have to adapt to it. True, but as long as they are somewhat balanced and most importantly entertaining whether winning or losing then they will be much better. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:00:04 - [29] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: if it realy is an issue the people doing the rmt need to be banned. any form of rmt is bad for the game and should be stoped. people making acusations is also not proof but something the ccp should look into if alot of people are crying fowl. If they have looked into and theres no rmt then that should be the end of it. CCP don;t control the logs for the IWI server though, so tracking what is a player legitimately winning a jackpot and what is someone paying cash for that win is impossible. This is why they should simply close the potential loophole. Xeno Szenn wrote: I wont speak for others in absolute certainty but form my experiance the only way to get a fight is to force the other side to fight. Fair fights don;t exsist in this game and they realy shouldn't. People honoring there word is a matter of practicality but beyond that it's a sandbox let people do what they will. If you give both sides a good reason to not run away (something to lose if they do) then they should naturally fight. This is what I mean when I say attackers should commit. They need to have a negative consequence to running away or losing like defenders do, then they will actually bring a fight. Xeno Szenn wrote: in this case you guys can hunt down and hit entosis ships as well denying us the ablity to force a fight. to me thats our risk that we might not be able to force a fight. either side can blueball and deny the fight. thats my loss if i cant get the fight i want you won that round if i do then i won. to me thats realy it all boils down to not sure anyone else. Only one side can blueball. Attackers can blueball and defender will form up, and the attackers can laugh, but if it's the other way round the attackers just entosis the ihub/tcu/station. The defenders have to show up because they have something to lose. Xeno Szenn wrote: without having a palce to stage from no one would attack anyone becuse your risk to reward ratio is way out of perportion. They would have a place to stage from, and like sov owners they would have to actually defend it. Xeno Szenn wrote: sov as far is know has never been entertaining. it makes history and news boradcast but never has it been a blast for the people fighting in it. the rewards are supposed to outballance the pain that comes with sov in my oppinion. I used to very much enjoy it before they destroyed it with fozziesov, so did a lot of others. If they had moved it in a positive direction it would have been better at least. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:06:32 - [30] - Quote CBBOMBERMAN wrote: You can get your big slugfest when you comeback to defend after reinforcement. So far we have seen a few of this in this war where large battles and super have been used. Other cases like ihubs, cfc has refused to engage. There seems to be a contradiction here dont you think when you want to claim lack of comitment... cfc lost 3 ihubs. Did not bother with comiting to defence. Yeah, because it still comes down to us showing up, you running away then us spending ages mining a structure. In some situations it just easier to replace the structure. The thing is, by choosing not to show up we have to make a choice that costs us. You don't. If you decided to not bother (which you do a lot) you lose absolutely nothing. CBBOMBERMAN wrote: If you are expecting them to drop supers on you then you are high. In war you fight using your strenght, not your weaknesses for the most part at least. Considering you are 50k coalition you should not be surprised... they are not here to make you have fun but to kill your coalition and maybe they have fun but not you if the can help it. Lets not forget that this has been a cfc strategy for years. Kinda funny when the same strategy is used against you now....i am enjoying the war. Of course you're enjoying the war. The mechanics are biased in your favour, you have to commit nothing of value to achieve your goals and players like yourself enjoy easymode gameplay over challenging gameplay and balance. You guys have no interest is actually holding the sov you attack so the fact that sov mechanics are terrible and strongly biased in favour of people that don't actually want sov suits you. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:40:45 - [31] - Quote Zappity wrote: If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots. Because once again for the 700th time, it's not "difficult", otherwise we would no longer own the space, it's just boring. Even if we had just a couple of systems we'd still be under the same problem that firing a mining laser at a structure and chasing off people with no intention of taking the sov (and nothing actually committed to the fight) is what CCP class as content. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 09:04:31 - [32] - Quote Zappity wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Zappity wrote: If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots. Because once again for the 700th time, it's not "difficult", otherwise we would no longer own the space, it's just boring. Even if we had just a couple of systems we'd still be under the same problem that firing a mining laser at a structure and chasing off people with no intention of taking the sov (and nothing actually committed to the fight) is what CCP class as content. Not so. If you had high population density in a smaller number of constellations you would not struggle to discourage attacks. But we already don't struggle, hence us not losing our space. The problem once again is that the act of doing so is boring, meaning the best way to deal with sov is to simply not hold it. I'm really not sure what it is about basic English you are failing to grasp. As for density, even after our loss of members we're already pretty tightly packed. We're at like 87 people per system, whereas you look at groups like BOT (18/system) Soviet-Union (15/system) Shadow of xXDEATHXx (12/system) and wondered why they aren't considered to be spread too thin. At the end of the day system density has nothing to do with it, the system requires no commitment from the attacker, so the reality is that if a non-sov holder wants to force a sov holder to have to deal with constant times, they can without any worry of losing anything of value. That's bad design. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:32:22 - [33] - Quote Nat Silverguard wrote: there must something wrong with you if you can't see what i can see from these info/statements of yours. so if population density is irrelevant and every corp/alliance that you mentioned are being constantly trolled, why can't we see any other QQ theads? does it mean SMA is the whiniest? now if my above statement about all of you are being attacked/trolled all the time is wrong, and infact people are just attacking you only, with having a much larger presence, why do you think people are doing it? what, players are not afraid of you? don't respect you? irritated? perhaps, jealous? I think you've either misread or misunderstood something. Well either that or it's just you're farming at the mouth so much you can't see that you are contradicting yourself. Here' I'll simplify: I've stated that mechanics are bad as attackers don't need to commit, meaning that they can keep defenders responding for eternity with no real cost. You've then gone on to claim that the issue is our population density. I've then shown there are significantly less dense sov holders not having these problems because attackers are not yet attacking them. This proves that your claims that our density (or lack thereof) is the issue is complete and utter horseshit. Any group owning sov would have the same issue if an attacker chose to leverage the massive benefit the broken mechanics give them. You're only happy because it's us and your bias overrides any potential for objective views. How do you even manage to dress yourself in the morning? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:44:48 - [34] - Quote Zappity wrote: Well I did a tour of Fade last night looking for a fight. I saw four SMA pilots, total, outside of staging. It was ridiculously deserted. Probably. Considering there's no real reason to have anything but a skeleton crew running defense most of the time, many people are in other locations making isk coming back to sort out timers. Zappity wrote: But the point is that if you are seeking an GÇ£interestingGÇ¥ way to defend your space, which I interpret as a PvP-based mechanic, then the best way to do it is to consolidate and diversify your players to the point where you can easily and quickly form a strong defence fleet. This means that the fleet doesn't have to fly all the way across the region. But what's the point of a "strong defence fleet"? There's no strong attack fleet to fight, and nothing even remotely encouraging attackers to form one, so all a strong defence fleet could do is watch entosis links cycling. Zappity wrote: A truly local defence fleet means that you don't have to do any entosis at all because the attackers don't manage to get a foothold. You form a fleet and kill the intruders. Interesting. Except that's not what happens. We form a defense fleet, they run away and ping something else. Short of having a standing fleet guarding every possible timer - which is far worse than what we're actually doing - nothing will change, and either way, no fights will be generated because attackers don't have to commit anything to the fight. Zappity wrote: But it seems to me what you actually want is to not have to defend an entire region (plus a couple of extra constellations) with an alliance which would, if left to their own devices, not last even a week. I'm fine with defending a region, I just want to defend it from players with enough committed to the attack that they actually see it through. And yes, I'm sure that if SMA were left alone to fight a coalition of multiple groups, we would fail to do so - most alliances would. Thanks for pointing out that coalitions are a requirement for sov combat. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7427	Posted - 2016.03.22 16:48:00 - [35] - Quote Genoir wrote: Congratulations to CCP. You've achieved something here. You've managed to finally make a dent in the numbers x wins. You've allowed smaller entities to wage guerrilla war against the huge sov holding alliances. Those same alliances being tied up with taking care of the problems within their own borders that they have issues causing problems outside them. I see no problem in people attacking infrastructure, causing headaches for the sov holders, if they can't face you head on against your full fleets, then they need to find some way to attack you, seems like they have. But they can't actually attack, they can just annoy. If they want to take and hold sov they still have to fight the same numbers. Small sov holders will still get booted the moment a bigger group wants the space, the only difference is that now player who have absolutely no interest in sov now have a way to force sov holders of all sizes to use boring mechanics with no commitment. No way of spinning that makes it good game design. I love how people just sling around the term "guerrilla war" in relation to this by the way. The players using this "guerrilla war" tactic are a coalition which includes the second largest alliance in the entire game (which itself is in a separate coalition). If a large alliance like that started to use it on small sov holders the effects would be considerably more devastating. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7435	Posted - 2016.03.28 11:54:54 - [36] - Quote Sister MaryElephant wrote: Rain6637 wrote: If you've been around so long how come I don't know who the you are Why should you care who I am or know me? Are you such a celebrity that it matters? I don't know YOU beyond your pitching for a selfishly one-way game change.....with a Goon tag. editAs far as "worse than reddit"....I fail to see how pointing out the truth is anything other than accurate. lol, everyone knows rain, be serious pls. And the point is sound, the new mechanics don;t promote fights, the old mechanics that still exist do. That should be evidence enough that the new mechanics are terrible. If that's not enough for you, how about looking at how CCP scrapped entosis mechanics for citadels and plan to move sov modules into citadels. Where do you think that will leave entossis mechanics? Entosis is dire and I don't think it has much of a shelf life remaining, it would just be nice if CCP tacked on minor QOL improvements while we still have to put up with them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7435	Posted - 2016.03.28 12:08:01 - [37] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: lol, everyone knows rain, be serious pls. And the point is sound, the new mechanics don;t promote fights, the old mechanics that still exist do. That should be evidence enough that the new mechanics are terrible. If that's not enough for you, how about looking at how CCP scrapped entosis mechanics for citadels and plan to move sov modules into citadels. Where do you think that will leave entossis mechanics? Entosis is dire and I don't think it has much of a shelf life remaining, it would just be nice if CCP tacked on minor QOL improvements while we still have to put up with them. Cry moar Lucas. It's what you do best. Boorish, but expected. Dishonest and boorish. Hallmarks of your posts. I don't think you know what crying is. Those are simply the facts, but by all means point out what parts of my post are dishonest. Or is constructive conversation beyond your reach? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 07:28:53 - [38] - Quote Crosi Wesdo wrote: Cant remember where i read it, but i remember reading some CFC dude complaining about how SOV is meaningless because you go somewhere, take SOV, then when you go back home the SOV is taken back. I think he kinda missed the point. As for OP. If you dont like defending SOV, why did you join the single most bloated SOV holding entity in EVE? I imagine he joined before fozzie came along and erased the need for attackers to commit to fights. The reality is that most sov holders are just bearing with the bad mechanics until they make them less bad. It'll be interesting what comes out of fanfest and I imagine a lot of us will make long term playstyle decisions based on that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 09:06:10 - [39] - Quote Why does it not surprise me that you need a sippy cup? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 10:14:13 - [40] - Quote Zappity wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Why does it not surprise me that you need a sippy cup? You are being very nasty in this thread. Were I of similar ilk I would point out that CO2 just figured out how to reduce sov timers. :) I wouldn't really call that nasty. And sure they have, by opting out of defending them by joining a different coalition. Do you seriously not see a problem with mechanics that are best played by avoiding playing with them? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 11:14:40 - [41] - Quote Zappity wrote: Really? I thought the fact that they wanted to stay and defend their space was the reason they left. Unlike the other rapidly retreating alliances. Sorry, I was under the impression you actually knew what the situation was. Their space was being defended, it was the new front line hence the huge push from other Imperium alliances to defend their space. They've chosen to swap sides specifically to avoid having to defend their space. I'm really not sure who you think they would now need to defend against considering they're going blue with the only group likely to attack them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7440	Posted - 2016.03.29 12:38:13 - [42] - Quote Rain, obviously you are unaware of this, but any response you have is tears. You're a bitter, salty gewn, and nothing you say will change that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7442	Posted - 2016.03.29 13:44:55 - [43] - Quote Aiwha, Even if we ignore the fact that we make isk when losing ships, you're effectively asking why we expend time and effort to shoot at and get shot in spaceships in a spaceship video game. The time it's hardest to maintain loyalty to the Imperium is when nothing is happening. When there's constant content it's a no-brainer. Rain, he calls us the CFC because he like many others is so mad at the Imperium that even the tiniest thing we do - even something so simple as changing a name - is super important. Whenever someone calls us the CFC I get a little bit more smug that I helped contribute, even if only a tiny amount, to giving that person something to hate that much. And if nothing else it helps out separate the pants on head guys from relevant enemies. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.29 19:21:16 - [44] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: CFC was a name that summed up the culture of no fucks given. Imperium was where Mittens just monetised you all and your safe ratting space as you became invested in the game that you originally sought to ruin for all of us...I really wouldn't be feeling smug about that Lucas. Imperium was just a natural evolution, there's only so long that a name that makes 14 year old r/eve poster chuckle is suitable, and that had to be replaced with a name that was more socially acceptable. The fact that the name changed doesn't make me smug, the fact that some people are so mad that they sit around stamping their feet and refusing to call the Imperium by their actual name, that carries a bit of smug with it. When someone attempt to attack you by acting like a child, yo know you've really hit them deep. It may be that you actually know this, but just in case you are being deadly serious I'll explain it. The phrase is "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game". Imperium members love eve, that's why they put in so much time and effort playing it, so noone has any interest it destroying EVE. The phrase is a taunt, that's all it is. Just like how in any other game players who play to win will do so by any means within the mechanics, even if they are considered cheap (like when people repeatedly use the same move in a fighting game). EVE just has a more flexible set of mechanics and ways to really annoy enemies. Play any competitive online game and the situation will be the same. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.29 22:00:54 - [45] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: the fact that some people are so mad that they sit around stamping their feet and refusing to call the Imperium by their actual name, that carries a bit of smug with it. When someone attempt to attack you by acting like a child, yo know you've really hit them deep.. ncdock lololololol black fleegion lolololol dockness lololol kadeshit lolololol CFC omg don't be so childish* call us by our proper name* Except that wouldn't be it, since those are plays on the names, so the Imperium version you would be looking for is "Emporium". People refusing to let go of CFC aren't using a play on the name, they are actively showing how salty they are that a group they hate dared to change it's name, and it's funny as ****. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.29 23:46:08 - [46] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Oh so calling them kadeshit was actually a display of wit and not "attempting to attack by acting like a child". Well, thanks for that clarification. Mate, if you can't see the distinction between making a play on a groups name - which literally everyone in EVE does - and utterly refusing to move on from the past out of some sense of butthurt over whatever triggered you in the past then that's really no helping you understand. Either way, it continues to amuse me every time some dweeb starts rattling on about the CFC. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.30 06:44:34 - [47] - Quote Arsine Mayhem wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Neadayan Drakhon wrote: or go back to Sov always being vulnerable... never made sense to me to only have windows of vulnerability And go back to actually needing to commit something of value to actually attack it too? Are those TEARS? Why yes they are. Only if you have literally no idea what tears are. Got anything constructive to add to the conversation? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7444	Posted - 2016.03.31 06:59:05 - [48] - Quote Arsine Mayhem wrote: Oh you mean like crying all over the forums because one of your meat shields doesn't want to play with you anymore? Because if someone disrupts your little farmland you go into tears and cry to change game mechanics. Shush now, you're starting to embarrass yourself. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7444	Posted - 2016.03.31 07:03:49 - [49] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: As far as goons go, reduced sov timers seems to be taking care of itself. By the time the war is over, they might not even have to worry at all. /thread. MBC are managing the issue already. Even if that is the case (it won't be, reddit propaganda isn't real and the war will be long) the same will apply regardless of who holds the sov. The system will still be pretty lame. Zappity wrote: Spreading the fights out was a deliberate decision. There was acknowledgement from both players and devs that, while impressive for headlines, enormous fleet battles were often terrible to participate in. It was a deliberate decision to move away from requiring a single point of conflict to a more distributed model. Big battles were great to participate in, where the heck have you been? And from CCPs perspective the bigger battles are what make headlines and bring in subs, they've confirmed this is the case for the M-O fight too. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.03.31 19:21:29 - [50] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Hawk Aulmais wrote: So #ccp we ran the numbers and in the past 14 days SMA has had to deal with ~200 hacking attempts. How many of these resulted in timers idk. Just goes to show its easier to attack than to defend. Can't save every system just due to the geography of some areas when 20 hackers are hitting at once. Hold less space then. Its super simple. Not that simple, they'd still hit every node they can resulting in likely the same amount of hacking attempts. It's been said multiple times over, but the fact hat we are still holding our space against a significantly larger number of enemies shows that we aren't overextended, but that still doesn't mean the mechanics we're all forced to deal with don't suck. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.01 06:47:42 - [51] - Quote Aiwha wrote: You've abandoned more than half your space... Certainly not more than half. The only space SMA has abandoned is space we had no intention of living in. Xeno Szenn wrote: No value in entosising to take systems for now. Why not make you allies still pay the sov bills and be forced to drop it themselves or let someone else take it rather then us taking it for them. To be fair PL, waffles, and everyone else have been entosising a lot of I hubs and other assets just because we havenGÇÖt taken the systems doesnGÇÖt mean we havenGÇÖt been entosising. The ability to destroy is a greater ability in this conflict so far then the ability to create. So far we have lit Fade, pure blind, Tribute, and Tenal on fire. I hubs, tcuGÇÖs, CSAA that are the old mechanic. All have been destroyed. M-O was entosis warfare. All of the destruction in fade and pure blind has been over entosising. So I think we have been entosising a lot. Your definition of "on fire" differs from the normal definition. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 09:18:48 - [52] - Quote Darek Castigatus wrote: Thats the beauty of a coalition of people with widely differeing ideas what they want from the campaign. People who want sov will take it, those who dont will just turn up for the fights like we've been doing all the time. Im going to say again whats been said elsewhere - you have tons of defensive timers because you still held to the dominion era thinking of 'lets own a load of sov we dont need' even after you ditched a lot of it due to new mechanics. And I'm going to say again what's been said in this very thread. You're wrong. If we had less space we'd just have more timers in that space instead on in border space. Setting up timers is incredibly easy which is why MBC are doing in then cheering continuously because it's how they pretend they are achieving something. If we had too much space, we wouldn't be able to defend it like we have been. Additionally the russian groups have one tenth the number of players per system, so if anyone's overstretched it's certainly not us. The real problem here is that you're unwilling to actually be honest about it so you just chant the party line. If one day you choose to settle down in some space you'll suddenly realise we were right all along and you'll be back here asking why you have to go deal with timers every day when you just want to play a game for entertainment. The bit to watch is when this war is over. See it's only fun because you have two large groups of people going nuts at each other (just like dominion sov pushed for) except now the mechanics are even boring but people put up with them to achieve the goals. Once one side wins and there's no longer these massive battles, sub numbers are going to drop like a rock because nobody wants to actually deal with the fozziesov mechanics for the sake of it, they are just a means to an end. Once the big war was over dominion mechanics mean people could enjoy their victory, but now since solo players can come and set up timers it just means you get the joy of going back to dealing with timers and zero fights for eternity. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 09:23:12 - [53] - Quote Aiwha wrote: We don't want the space. We just don't want you living in it. Which isn't what the sov mechanics are designed to facilitate. It's an ownership mechanics and you should need to commit to it because you actually want it, not just be able to effectively gank space. See you like it because you get to use it against goons, but remember the same mechanics are what work for all players, so nothing stops people just picking any old target and going "You don't have your space anymore, have fun dealing with bad mechanics trying to defend it and laser it back". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 11:03:25 - [54] - Quote Aiwha wrote: If you want to hold space, you have to attack it first. We're just attacking it and making it inhospitable for you to live there. Because your leadership has pissed off so many people to the point where they just want to burn it down. Cry more. The only reason our leadership has pissed people off is because they've managed to accomplish something you guys would have no hope of. The fact that you guys are so delusional that you are acting like you've already won makes it all the more amusing. The only bad thing about the entire war is that one of the mechanics we have to deal with consists entirely of mining structures and so is boring. If by some miracle you guys actually manage to stay together long enough to win, all you have to look forward to is us moving to NPC space then using the exact same advantage you currently enjoy to stop over everyone remotely nearby. Aiwha wrote: See, how it works for normal people is that you have space to make money, so if you take space, you have to use it to make money. Since you pissed off IWI, we can literally just burn your space and not have to worry about the isk thanks to 1ronbank and his merry band of space misers. Honestly, the fact that an RMT scam machine is pouring ISK handed to them by dumb people into providing me content instead of into illicit ISK sales just makes me giddy. I know the sad truth is that eventually he'll stop and go back to selling ISK for cash full time, but until then it kinda feels like we're helping the game by redistributing this wealth legitimately. You're welcome EVE. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 13:25:31 - [55] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Being a wuss and bluing all your neighbors so you can PVE all day is a great accomplishment? That's highsec. You're bragging about living in highsec. I don't PVE, but nice try. I like the version of highsec where there's continuous daily raids from multiple groups for several years and no concord to guarantee your safety. Aiwha wrote: If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space? Comprehension not your thing huh? Simply put, shooting ships is fun, firing mining lasers at structures is not. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 14:09:00 - [56] - Quote ArmyOfMe wrote: Does the new sov system suck? yes, even i think so, but its still nice to see smaller alliances be able to disrupt bigger ones. Which I agree with, but the smaller alliances should still have to commit something to it. ArmyOfMe wrote: Depends on which of the sov sytstems you are reffering to, you do know that, right? In context he's saying it's a buff over the previous system, not the original hacked together sov system. [quote=ArmyOfMe]ummmm, you do realise the irony of this one right? No, not really. I want good, entertaining mechanics in place, so that people who want big groups can play in big groups, people who want small groups can play in small groups and people who want solo can play solo and there's a good mix of interaction between all of them. But what many people want from fozziesov is a way for small groups to stomp all over big groups until big groups don't exist. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 19:32:11 - [57] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: When a coalition of members outnumbers the CFC I don't think that's a small group stomping on a big group. It's a big group stomping on a big group. But this thread wasn't put up talking about the big group, it was talking about the small groups and how easy and low risk it is for an aggressor regardless of size. Big group vs big group is the natural evolution of that with the big aggressor able to press that advantage. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 22:48:07 - [58] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Its plenty risky. Its also risky to own space. HAHAHAHA. So it's plenty risky to stick an entosis link on a disposable ship and fire it at a structure? Stop being terrible. Seriously guy, if you can't see the clear difference in what people have to put on the line between attackers and defenders it's because you don't want to. Anyone even remotely objective can see where the problem lies, and the funny part is that one day you'll probably try to hold sov and you'll be right back here with the exact same problems. What's becoming clear to most people now is that it's pretty much the best idea to live in lowsec or npc nullsec bordering sov space and use sov casually rather than actually owning it and living directly in it. The whole concept of ownership and belonging has been chucked. This is why the current war has no real endgame. Even if we lose the majority of our space there's nothing stopping us doing exactly what MBC are doing then nobody is owning it, and what we end up with is two massive coalitions fighting each other perpetually and we've back to blob vs blob. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 23:28:49 - [59] - Quote Hawke Frost wrote: Feel free to leave 0.0 I also feel free to stay in 0.0 and have an opinion about it, generic NPC alt. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7446	Posted - 2016.04.04 06:47:10 - [60] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: The sov mechanic system can only really be used ageist you if you care about sov. A lot of people seem to care about sov while others donGÇÖt if people dint care about sov and the defenders do it will always be in the attackerGÇÖs favor. And you don't see the problem with this? The sov system is supposed to be about people who want sov deciding who gets it. Since it best used by simply not wanting sov there's no point in sov existing. Xeno Szenn wrote: The question will always come down to what is the greater power. The power to create and build or the power to destroy. What do people want to do in this game and how do they want to play. Except it clearly doesn't, since like you've just said the attacker has the advantage by not caring about sov, thus they don't actually need to be more powerful. Xeno Szenn wrote: Fozzie sov seemed to desire to make a city state type of null sec where lots of groups owned and held sov. The old system meant only a few powerful groups could hold sov. What will happen when everything settles who knows. Will it go back to the way it was before with the Imperium owning half of sov null. Will Anyone hold sov, or will lots of groups hold sov? I donGÇÖt have an answer to that. But that's not going to happen, what it's going to create is a place where it's irrelevant who holds sov since anyone can just roll in trigger all your timers, waste your time and inevitably destroy your space. It's a sov system that gives and overwhelming advantage to non-sov holders, which is probably the dumbest way for the mechanic to be. The only reason you like that is that you are the non-sov holder lol. As usual, players benefiting from the broken mechanic think it's fine. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7446	Posted - 2016.04.04 06:53:20 - [61] - Quote Zappity wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Aiwha wrote: You've abandoned more than half your space... Certainly not more than half. The only space SMA has abandoned is space we had no intention of living in. Probably time to update that statement after your SOTA. Wait, so you're telling me situations change? Honestly I'm surprised! Let me ask you this. If you achieve what you want and we move to invulnerable NPC stations then continue to play exactly as we always have from the safety of NPC space, what are you going to do then? Because you won't have your inherent advantage and supposedly you don't want to be blue with 40,000 people forever, but this war won't end just because a few of us have to relocate. You guys are way ahead of yourselves patting yourselves on the back lol The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7446	Posted - 2016.04.04 08:34:20 - [62] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: You claim that the only reason I like this is because IGÇÖm not a sov holder. That fact is untrue I like the system because you need to occupy all your space and maintain high indexes or the small guy can take a bit of it for however long they can hold onto it. Except this isn't true, since all it takes is flying in and triggering timers forcing the defender to respond until the windows get wide enough that they can't stop them all. For all intents and purposes it doesn't seem to matter how much you use your space, if a non-sov holder wants to grind it down, they eventually will, and a sov holder can do nothing in return. A sov holding alliance also can't go on offense as that would leave their space wide open. So the system looks like it's designed such that sov holders are forced to spend all their time defending while non-sov holders are designated attackers. It should be that alliances are fighting over holding the space, not that the best course of action is to not hold it but harass those that do. I mean just look at how this war is starting to go. Everyone based out of NPC stations because basing anywhere else is suicide. The whole concept of living in a declared home is rapidly diminishing, and that's a damn shame. If they want proper occupancy sov they should just scrap entosis, scrap the structures and make it pure occupancy based, then the only way to take as well as hold a system is to actually live in it rather than this timer based crap. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:11:20 - [63] - Quote Dark Lord Trump wrote: Ah, there's your problem. You've overextended and can't defend all your space, so it gets taken from you. This has been said and debunked multiple times. Please go back and reread the thread and let me know once done. Ta. Zappity wrote: I think itGÇÖs a bit more complicated than that. Even if they consolidated to a single null constellation I doubt theyGÇÖd be able to defend against the current opposition. Pretty much this.. However if we consolidate to an NPC system then this does not occur. Why? Because the defenders have everything on the table so not showing up is a loss, while the attackers have nothing on the table so not showing up is still a win since it time wastes for the defenders. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:12:05 - [64] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: Lol = tears get mental help friend Lol Lol = tears The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:18:44 - [65] - Quote Aiwha wrote: An entosis T1 frigate is an easy as ** target. Its locked down to 4k/s speed and cannot warp for five minutes. A single Tanaris can clear out half a dozen entosis ships in 5 minutes. The reason you guys are being run ragged is because you own WAY too much space and don't have enough pvpers to defend it properly. Less space, not ** alliance, more pvpers. Pick one. Except that's clearly not the case. Under the current sov system it really doesn't matter how many PvPers you've got or now much you try to use your system, if someone wants you out they will achieve that because every time they attack they weaken your space and it costs them basically nothing while you have no ability to retaliate because you're dealing with structure mining and ADMs constantly. This is why trying to actually live out of sov while at war is suicide - which you guys clearly know hence most of BoB abandoning sov to go to war. Sometimes I wonder if you guys are starting to believe your own propaganda. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:19:58 - [66] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Lucas I don't think you understand how = works I figured I must have it wrong so I deferred to his expertise. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:10:31 - [67] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Its literally the case. Saying "that's not the case" doesn't suddenly make it not true that any interceptor can catch a T1 frigate, and most of them can pretty easily whelp an entosis fit one. Hell, you don't even need to catch it, a beam slicer can just orbit it at 20k and melt it without even bothering for tackle. I'm sure an interceptor can take down a T1 frigate, and I'll let you know just as soon as I'm in that circumstance, until then it's as helpful as saying "if the enemy has a loaf of bread on his face he can't fight you anyway". Aiwha wrote: We've invested time and money into making your lives miserable. Its working. Blame your leaders for making so many enemies. Why would I blame my leaders? I like having lots of enemies. What I hate is having to waste time mining structures because CCP thought it would be a great idea to guarantee that sov holders can do nothing but spend all day gridning ADMs and firing a sov laser. I was in favour of full occupancy based sov, where living in your space meant you kept it but fighting other players directly is how you took it and defended it. This rubbish they've put in instead is dire. You may not believe that but even CCP do, which is why they've already scrapped it from citadels. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:16:05 - [68] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: To be honest, so far the only thing that was established is that you are uncomfortable defending your space. Current levels of offensive action aside (anyone would be in trouble in such situation), I don't think that your ability to keep space under your flag in the long run means that your are not overextending. I was under impression that doing so comfortably would be a sign of "proper" size. Which of course is inversely proportional to amount of people you pissed off enough that they drop anything fun they were doing and go camp/sovlaser your systems instead. It's a simple case of numbers, when you have over a thousand enemies drop into your space and you have a 150 man fleet to defend, it's not overextension if you lose space. If we were overextended we wouldn't be able to defend against even a balanced attack, which clearly we were able to do. It's pretty simple to understand, if you have 1000 people in a single system and a 2000 man fleet flies in and roflstomps you, you didn't lose because you were overextended. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:32:48 - [69] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: It's a simple case of numbers, when you have over a thousand enemies drop into your space and you have a 150 man fleet to defend, it's not overextension if you lose space. If we were overextended we wouldn't be able to defend against even a balanced attack, which clearly we were able to do. It's pretty simple to understand, if you have 1000 people in a single system and a 2000 man fleet flies in and roflstomps you, you didn't lose because you were overextended. I specifically said "Current levels of offensive action aside". I fully understand that under current circumstances sov will be lost no matter the mechanics behind it. So then why is it overextension? What exactly do you class as overextension? The thing is the guy you are jumping in to defend is blaming the entire situation as it is on overextension, but I'm just not seeing it. Seeing it from the inside what I have seen is an absolutely ludicrous amount of structure mining and very little in the way of engaging gameplay. I mean if this is what it's going to be like going forward, I can't see many people opting to live in sov space once they've been attacked a couple of times. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:36:33 - [70] - Quote Aiwha wrote: No, its like saying rock beats scissors, then you insist that is not true. I'm gonna assume TMC is going to put out an article soon about how terribly under-powered interceptors are after that 12b interceptor whelp. I'm not saying t's not true, I'm simply saying it's not pertinent to the current situation since they aren't using scissors. You're saying "An interceptor can defeat a T1 frigate, therefore the fact that there are hundreds of nodes to fire a laser at every day is no longer boring, even though T1 frigates aren't what are generally being used". It makes no sense. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 14:33:19 - [71] - Quote Aiwha wrote: You don't have to sov mine the nodes. They'll automatically win for the defender after 1H30M. So you just have to fly around killing people doing the entosis work. If you put half the effort you put whining on the forums into defending your space, maybe Bastion and LAWN wouldn't be homeless right now. Now you're just being ridiculous. Yeah, we'll just let the nodes idle, that's sure to win. I get that you like the mechanics being in your favour, so I can see why you're getting so defensive over the idea of CCP actually fixing them, but those of us that actually like to enjoy the game can see that they are pretty dire. Remember, you only like them because you don't actually want to hold sov. If you did I guarantee after a few serious attacks you'd be jumping right on the same bandwagon. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:17:12 - [72] - Quote Aiwha wrote: I literally hold sov right now. So does The Culture. We actually fight each other over sov on a semi-regular basis. Because we're not **. Hold it simply because it's available no doubt. And no, if you fight each other on a regular basis and have made not steps towards actually defeating each other you're either specifically aiming not to involve sov mechanics (thus proving the point that they are boring) or you are in fact . I'm actually betting it's the former. Mario Putzo wrote:** Seems odd to hear a CFC member complain about overwhelming numbers. Why just over 6 months ago CFC was employing this exact same tactic in Providence to "prove" to CCP that an overwhelming force could just take what they wanted with impunity....then they proceeded to get roflstomped out by ProviBloc over 2 weeks. Difference of course being ProvidBloc actually actively defended their space against the CFC where as CFC is just abandoning regions en mass then whining about it later. Hey, don;t get me wrong I've got nothing against overwhelming numbers, and I have no problem losing space to a bigger group rolling in, I just disagree with the notion that losing space is proof of being overextended, and I wish the game was entertaining when defending a region rather than being force to mine structures rather than just fight. Sov should be a byproduct of playing the game and fighting each other, not a fixed, timer based mechanic. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 21:55:55 - [73] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Grr gons hat gons. I see what you are saying bro. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:07:40 - [74] - Quote Akballah Kassan wrote: Waded through this thread and I'd had my own thoughts. Looks at alliance tag I seriously doubt that. Akballah Kassan wrote: Our Alliance entosis things to provoke fights. Before everybody dog piled into fighting The Imperium/CFC we rarely got a decent fight because Goons would just drop Super caps on us, to which we have no counter. They never looked for fun fights and to be fair if that's how they roll and their line members are happy with that then I can't complain. If that were true you'd fight. As your overlord Gevlon has stated, since you've started entosising your stats have drastically reduced. Let's face it, you entosis some stuff to try to feel relevant then bomb yourselves at a gate. This is pretty much the entertainment you add (and you are very good at that so don't stop). Akballah Kassan wrote: Imperium was vastly over extended and even Mitten's acknowledges this. Whilst I can understand his call to fall back (a bit like the USSR did in WW II) it must be disheartening to other alliances knowing 'their' space is probably gone forever. Not overextended so much as needing to focus our defenses because of the sheer number of players that are coming in. We certainly haven't lost any of our space forever since there's absolutely no way you guys are going to be able to either stay blue or continue this war for the years it would take to win it. Akballah Kassan wrote: As for SMA, the same O.P is crying on another thread about the threat from a lone entosising Condor, explaining how they all have to dock up, wait for an FC to form a fleet to go and kill the menace! If one entosising Condor is such a threat no wonder your empire is crumbling! He may be, but that doesn't mean that right here he doesn't have a point. Entosis is boring. Akballah Kassan wrote: As for the actual sov mechanics - sov-wanding isn't the best game play but it's better then the old super blob wins sov we had before. Also, nothing will stop boredom and burn out being a tactic used in sov warfare no matter what system you use. Nobody is going to suicide fleets against an enemy they know they can't beat and attackers who don't get a fight will have to put up with the boredom that entails. But it's the same. You realise the only reason you are making a dent is because you are now in a blob lol. "Finally, Lucas's complaints about nobody being able to go on deployment any more because they have to constantly defend their own space - surely that's a good thing? Why should you be able to go on vacation to kick over somebody else's sand castle, safe in the knowledge your own sand castle is safe while you do it?" Why should sov holders be able to attack each other? I pretty much think that's the idea of the game mate. Holding sov shouldn't just mean you are trapped having to stand guard day in day out because any randoms with a sovwand can come and screw up the ADMs. If they are supposed to just defend then there should definitely be better defensive bonuses, as at the moment it seems like holding sov is more like a noose than anything else. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:21:30 - [75] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: It absolutely is proof you are over extended though. CFC held at one point 8 regions as a 40K man group. This is ~5K dudes per region. Collectively that looks good on paper since there were no coalitions really capable of threatening the sov of CFC. But again if we look at ProviBloc, they had 15K dudes in one region, and still lost some timers over the brief war vs CFC. Providence is an absolutely huge region for a start. Compare our systems/person to rusblock and you're having a laugh if you think we're overextended. I think they have 13 players per system last I checked, while SMA had around 100. Either way, losing systems itself is not a sign of overextension, it's simply a sign the other people had a stronger force. And sure, some parts of the Imperium may have been bloated for their alliances, and that's why the fell back in advance of being taken. SMA is not one of those groups. Mario Putzo wrote: By rights CFC should have been holding 3-4 regions, or about half of what they initially held before this conflict started. We know that defense in this situation is possible, ProviBloc has already shown us that 15K man coalition is capable of defending a single region against an overwhelming number of people arrayed against it. Had CFC consolidated into Dek/PB/Fade/Branch their ability to defense those regions would have been much much higher with 10K people per region. Except they aren't. We were relatively new to the attacking of sov so there was a large amount of learning going on our side, and provi had everyone dog-piling in to defend them against the "evil goonies". I think during he entire campaign I saw a provi fleet like twice. The only thing that keeps Provi in their space is the same thing that's always kept them there, it's terrible space and noone wants it. The moment that changes they'll be gone. Mario Putzo wrote: CFC is losing this fight not because MBC has more dudes, not because FozzieSov generates timers, but because they did not have the capacity to defend what they laid claim to, and now it is too late for them to redeploy to save anything, had they consolidated months ago, they would likely have already bled out numbers from MBC because grinding into a defended sov provides much less of a morale boost then steam rolling through 5 regions in two weeks because the occupants would rather run than fight. I'd say it's a bit early to be calling it losing. Most of BoB did their abandoning of sov before they started because they knew what was coming up. We're dealing with the war from fresh and with the whole CO2 thing so we're taking a bit of a hit but I have no doubt that once we find our footing we'll hammer our way though and BoB will realise how shockingly overconfident they are being. Mario Putzo wrote: ProviBloc 15K dudes 1 Region, successful defense vs 40K man coalition CFC 40K dudes 8 Regions, abysmal failure vs 50K man coalition Math isn't hard, 3-4 regions, leaning to the lesser side depending on the quality of you PVP core. Provi has proven with adequate numbers you can defend your space against a much larger foe. Math may not be hard, but finding the correct figures apparently is. I'm gonna be laughing about you thinking Provi defended their space for some time. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:06:04 - [76] - 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? People kill miners all of the time, and don't care ores or even industry - it is just cause a reaction. And they use a disposable ship to do it. Why would sovereignty be exempt to what has been an accepted play style in just about any other facet of the game? Bonus points - goons have been one of the major proponents of this play style, it seems ironic to hear some of their pets complain about being on the receiving end. If you want something in this game - you need to defend it. Or it can be taken from you, and the rest of us will laugh at your failure. That does not matter whether its a barge or an outpost or a region of space. If you read the quotes you'll see the difference right in there. Harassment is fine and yes has always been a thing, coming in ganking ratters, making people dock up, gatecamps, all of that. The difference now is that small groups who don't actually want sov can actually contest it and really don't have to lay anything on the line to do so, and worse still, dealing with that mechanic especially as a defender is incredibly boring. It's structure mining. The thing you don't seem to get is that as soon as the focus shifts from us to other players the same thing goes for everyone. Nothing stop as small gang harassing any group out of their sov. You see that it's bugging us so you support it, but that's an overly simplified view to have on such a widely used mechanic. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:08:21 - [77] - Quote Zappity wrote: If this force was arrayed against the Imperium in Dominion sov, you would not be able to fight it. Totally agree (or at least to the extent that we'd be doing the same as we are now), which is why this force has nothing to do with the simple fact that entosis is dull as **. Ed: Because to clarify I believe we can fight it this time too, and MBC are overly eager on declaring their victory. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

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.