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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Gloom skull Dethahal House of the Dead Monkey SpaceMonkey's Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.11 04:40:36 - [1] - Quote I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks
Kuetlzelcoatl 31	Posted - 2016.03.11 05:44:38 - [2] - Quote Maintain less Sov.
Daerrol Death By Design Did he say Jump 296	Posted - 2016.03.11 05:52:09 - [3] - Quote USe your boosting alt that is in system to entosis. If you have no boosting alt in system, you probably don't actually need that SOV.
Neadayan Drakhon Heuristic Industrial And Development AddictClan 44	Posted - 2016.03.11 07:06:16 - [4] - Quote or go back to Sov always being vulnerable... never made sense to me to only have windows of vulnerability
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7389	Posted - 2016.03.11 07:38:22 - [5] - 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.
Yun Kuai Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 287	Posted - 2016.03.11 07:56:40 - [6] - Quote Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: Maintain less Sov. This and more this. If you're complaining about the number of timers then you're holding on to too much space. Less space, less to defend, more time to unblue yourself from the blue doughnut, more time to actually PvP in the "lawless" space that is nullsec. P.S. FW is vulnerable for 23.5hrs, 7 days a week and can be attacked by any and all ship types. You don't hear us complaining about that. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
eubin scammed SHAZB0T 0	Posted - 2016.03.11 08:48:40 - [7] - Quote Have you tried not being in a trashcan alliance?
Aiwha Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 992	Posted - 2016.03.11 08:55:11 - [8] - Quote Join Horde. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Jacques d'Orleans 2670	Posted - 2016.03.11 09:35:54 - [9] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks Mr. SMA whines about to much Sov timers Isn't it ironic... don't you think And isn't it ironic...don't you think A little too ironic...and, yeah, I really do think... The beginning of the End Skill injectors? Attempting to give a shyte: 0.5%
Mishra San 310	Posted - 2016.03.11 13:40:06 - [10] - Quote Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: Maintain less Sov. +1 Afterall, I believe that was one of the "points"? Let's smaller groups of dudes derp their way into sovereignty? Steve Ronuken for CSM XI! sending virtual hug, virtual hug sent!

Lykouleon Noble Sentiments Second Empire. 1734	Posted - 2016.03.11 14:46:13 - [11] - Quote I, too, feel entitled to maximum reward with minimal effort. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Reiisha Repracor Industries 984	Posted - 2016.03.11 16:15:23 - [12] - Quote I was thinking, why not remove the sovereignty mechanic outright? I feel too many mechanics are necessary just to decide the color of the map. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Slumberg Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 9	Posted - 2016.03.11 18:45:18 - [13] - Quote Posting in a Cultural Victory thread
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7390	Posted - 2016.03.12 18:20:05 - [14] - 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.
Dark Lord Trump Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 11	Posted - 2016.03.12 18:35:55 - [15] - Quote eubin scammed wrote: Have you tried not being in a trashcan alliance? Your real problem right there. I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1701	Posted - 2016.03.12 23:13:06 - [16] - Quote Maintain no Sov.
Mishra San 349	Posted - 2016.03.13 14:58:29 - [17] - Quote Reiisha wrote: I was thinking, why not remove the sovereignty mechanic outright? I feel too many mechanics are necessary just to decide the color of the map. That would be interesting. Steve Ronuken for CSM XI! sending virtual hug, virtual hug sent!
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 422	Posted - 2016.03.13 15:05:04 - [18] - Quote Erase TCUs from the game. Systems should belong to whomever lives in them and can keep out hostiles.
WNxJeheira Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.03.13 15:42:39 - [19] - Quote quit sucking maybe?
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33449	Posted - 2016.03.15 08:40:22 - [20] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Join Horde. Ah I have joined several times over and it's amazing, thanks. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33449	Posted - 2016.03.15 08:54:43 - [21] - Quote A glaring symptom of this new sov system seems to be the opposite of the HP grind system. By limiting attackers to 1, you've also reduced the response to near 1. I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. Compare this to at least 50 duders required in the past, and entosis looks a lot like pure harassment. Now. I think it's clear this thread was started out of frustration and there's no way to spin that. It does prove my point, however, that entosis is probably not the type of thing customers enjoy. I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM. The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment. I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33449	Posted - 2016.03.15 08:59:14 - [22] - Quote 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. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sequester Risalo Semiki Minerals and Missiles Company Ltd. 189	Posted - 2016.03.15 09:36:41 - [23] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33449	Posted - 2016.03.15 11:01:11 - [24] - Quote Hmm I wonder what CCP BOSUN has to say about this matter. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 527	Posted - 2016.03.15 11:09:17 - [25] - Quote "Just one more nerf" Sounds like those damn carebear haulers all over again. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33449	Posted - 2016.03.15 11:18:15 - [26] - Quote Sequester Risalo wrote: Rain6637 wrote: I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. 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. FYI you're posting on a character in an industry corp with two lowsec Nighthawk losses, w/ pods. It's times like this I pretend you're a dev. There's something about a smug forum retort that just feels different. So I start to investigate. Your corp has 8 characters, and three of them were born within a day of each other, from 2014/03/27 to 2014/03/28. Devs are also given three accounts to play for free, for "gameplay experience." Take one CCP character from the possible 9, and there's your 8 character corp. Now let's look at that date 2014/03/27 and compare it to the list of CCP characters and their born dates. What are the odds that Sequestor Risalo is born, say, within 24 hours of a CCP. I figure the time difference is accounted for by an artist at CCP taking that first day to model the CCP character after the new CCP person. Because there's no way each and every CCP is so skilled at making their character in their likeness. Going down my list of birth dates I see that there is, in fact, a CCP born date that falls within my criteria. What are the odds? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2753	Posted - 2016.03.15 11:20:20 - [27] - 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. I think we will see a citadel-like damage cap make an appearance in sov structures after it has been validated after release. Probably something like Asher's idea about ADM affecting EHP. But it would be a shame to see guerilla tactics disappear entirely. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2683	Posted - 2016.03.15 12:15:28 - [28] - Quote Zappity wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Entosis feels very artificial as a game mechanic, but I realize there has been a lot of development and code and effort all around to bringing it into the game. I'd prefer it went away completely, but that's probably an unrealistic expectation. I think we will see a citadel-like damage cap make an appearance in sov structures after it has been validated after release. Probably something like Asher's idea about ADM affecting EHP. But it would be a shame to see guerilla tactics disappear entirely. What you call guerrilla tactics I started calling a big game of ding-dong-ditch a few months ago.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33449	Posted - 2016.03.15 13:14:15 - [29] - Quote Yeah I feel like calling it guerrilla tactics lends it more credibility than it deserves. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Commander Spurty Moosearmy I N F A M O U S 1621	Posted - 2016.03.15 16:02:24 - [30] - Quote So all you're [op] saying is that "you can't play the game you want to play"? Sounds like someone else's "punchline" There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP

Spurty Moosearmy I N F A M O U S 1621	Posted - 2016.03.15 16:02:24 - [31] - Quote So all you're [op] saying is that "you can't play the game you want to play"? Sounds like someone else's "punchline" There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.03.17 04:49:42 - [32] - Quote I think having a window is part of the issue. the old system had no window so the window is actual a bouns to the defender then again i don;t live in sov.
Hawk Aulmais EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance 1	Posted - 2016.03.17 05:20:29 - [33] - Quote Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: Maintain less Sov. largest alliance with the least amount of sov..... http://prntscr.com/ag9rgz ............. who needs less sov?
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 374	Posted - 2016.03.17 06:02:20 - [34] - Quote Hawk Aulmais wrote: largest alliance with the least amount of sov..... your alliance size is meaningless and irrelevant if you are lazy and/or incompetent to protect your space. Just Add Water
Hawk Aulmais EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance 1	Posted - 2016.03.17 06:16:24 - [35] - Quote Nat Silverguard wrote: Hawk Aulmais wrote: largest alliance with the least amount of sov..... your alliance size is meaningless and irrelevant if you are lazy and/or incompetent to protect your space. Kinda hard to defend when you have 4-6 different alliances constantly sov-lazoring it with no real intention of moving in....or entosis bombs like PH has been doing. Just proves there is little risk to the attacker when 20 mallers can spread out and hit 20 structures at the same time.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7404	Posted - 2016.03.17 12:32:06 - [36] - 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.
Sequester Risalo Semiki Minerals and Missiles Company Ltd. 191	Posted - 2016.03.17 12:49:59 - [37] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? I know that this spells not fun. But wass the old system any better? 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. Big alliances have the advantage of spreading the unfun parts out across a huge number of players and still complain.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7404	Posted - 2016.03.17 13:31:11 - [38] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.03.17 15:34:34 - [39] - Quote Honestly it should always be vulnerable artificial limits on attacking is what we have but it's bad game design. Having to commit small ships and harass a group has always been a part of eve since IGÇÖve been playing. Stealth bombers, Sluiced ganking with desires, and Even afk cloaking. These tactics are something the Imperium and SMA have used and continue to use IGÇÖm certain. If the enemy only has 10 ships attacking, you then you should only need 10 ships to kill them. Just because you own space doesnGÇÖt entitle you to keep that space itGÇÖs up to you to defend it and fight for it. Why should you be entitled to leave your space and own it when no one else is? If a wormhole group deploys way from there wormhole IGÇÖm sure they would lose it. If a fw militia deploys to null sec, they would lose their space. Why should owning sov make it so you donGÇÖt have to live in your space and hold it? Also letGÇÖs say they would reduce the vulnerability windows why do you think 3 to 5 days is a good option that seems to give the defender a massive advantage while artificially limiting the attacker. Would you be ok with 24-hour vulnerability windows on those 3 to 5 days? It would limit the days you had to defended but force you to actual defend on those days and would bring back the ability to make timers for whenever the attacker wanted to make them.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7405	Posted - 2016.03.17 15:52:58 - [40] - 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.

Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.03.17 16:29:08 - [41] - Quote If it only takes a single ship to take sov is that sov defend? and they did lower the bar to attacking sov but they also gave bonuses to the defender in the forum of vulnerability timers. 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. 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.03.17 16:35:39 - [42] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: A glaring symptom of this new sov system seems to be the opposite of the HP grind system. By limiting attackers to 1, you've also reduced the response to near 1. I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. Compare this to at least 50 duders required in the past, and entosis looks a lot like pure harassment. Now. I think it's clear this thread was started out of frustration and there's no way to spin that. It does prove my point, however, that entosis is probably not the type of thing customers enjoy. I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM. The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment. I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space. Small gang fights are fun but not the only gameplay eve should offer the massive wars are what brings a lot of players to the game and a style of gameplay that should not suffer just to give small gang fights more of a chance. However, the mechanics are what they are and if a better system or a new system was introduced it wouldnGÇÖt take long for people to complain again anyway
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7405	Posted - 2016.03.17 17:45:28 - [43] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.03.17 19:41:33 - [44] - Quote 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. 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. 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. 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 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. the more you live in and use your space the harder it is for attackers as well. the current sov mechanics might not encourage the large fights of dominon sov but they do provide fights and contents so it suits that need as well. I do think sov income should get a slight buff to help reward people for living there and having to fight for there space but beyond that it does serve well for a sov mechanic thats not based around suppers
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2696	Posted - 2016.03.17 20:55:01 - [45] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: I think having a window is part of the issue. the old system had no window so the window is actual a bouns to the defender then again i don;t live in sov. The window is a 2 edged sword. Whoever play out of that window is pretty much free to do whatever he wants while the people who's playtime is in-line with the windo currently gets to run around chasing no-commitment doctrine around. There is next to 0 benefit to committing for an attacker anyway because you gain next to no effectiveness in your attack. Every fleet I have been on to "save" timers, win or lose, the end comments from the player are the same depending on something completely different than if the objective was met. If the enemy had nothing but no-commitement ship doing the attack, everyone is bored out of their mind because nothing happen, It's warp-warp-warp-warp-warp and stragglers from both side getting killed usually because of their own misstakes. If a fleet show up, people are happy even if we lost it because the timer was fought over. With iteration to the game every ~6 weeks possible right now, trying for a single cycle to "force" a committed attack one way or another and then see how each side of the coin feel over it, we might actually get some steps done toward a better product. Roll back the change the next iteration if it's a disaster. I'm pretty sure people won't get completely butt mad if CCP shows they are trying to check what could work better for everyone. Hell maybe people don't want to commit more because they feel it's not worth more but CCP would probably benefit from learning that if it's the case.
Josef Djugashvilis 3333	Posted - 2016.03.17 21:00:51 - [46] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Join Horde. Who is this Join Horde of whom you speak? This is not a signature.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7407	Posted - 2016.03.17 21:13:48 - [47] - 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.
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 374	Posted - 2016.03.17 21:19:20 - [48] - Quote Hawk Aulmais wrote: Nat Silverguard wrote: Hawk Aulmais wrote: largest alliance with the least amount of sov..... your alliance size is meaningless and irrelevant if you are lazy and/or incompetent to protect your space. Kinda hard to defend when you have 4-6 different alliances constantly sov-lazoring it with no real intention of moving in....or entosis bombs like PH has been doing. Just proves there is little risk to the attacker when 20 mallers can spread out and hit 20 structures at the same time. lol, the only reason they do that is because they can do that, as i've said, lazy and incompetent. Just Add Water
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists spacemonkey's alliance 7407	Posted - 2016.03.17 21:49:53 - [49] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.03.18 00:03:22 - [50] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: I think having a window is part of the issue. the old system had no window so the window is actual a bouns to the defender then again i don;t live in sov. The window is a 2 edged sword. Whoever play out of that window is pretty much free to do whatever he wants while the people who's playtime is in-line with the windo currently gets to run around chasing no-commitment doctrine around. There is next to 0 benefit to committing for an attacker anyway because you gain next to no effectiveness in your attack. Every fleet I have been on to "save" timers, win or lose, the end comments from the player are the same depending on something completely different than if the objective was met. If the enemy had nothing but no-commitement ship doing the attack, everyone is bored out of their mind because nothing happen, It's warp-warp-warp-warp-warp and stragglers from both side getting killed usually because of their own misstakes. If a fleet show up, people are happy even if we lost it because the timer was fought over. With iteration to the game every ~6 weeks possible right now, trying for a single cycle to "force" a committed attack one way or another and then see how each side of the coin feel over it, we might actually get some steps done toward a better product. Roll back the change the next iteration if it's a disaster. I'm pretty sure people won't get completely butt mad if CCP shows they are trying to check what could work better for everyone. Hell maybe people don't want to commit more because they feel it's not worth more but CCP would probably benefit from learning that if it's the case. This could honestly be the best way to help with tuning the sov mechanics . and could be a great way to make them a bit better for both defenders and attackers.

Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2016.03.18 00:25:45 - [51] - Quote So what youGÇÖre saying here is the people who own sov hate it and the groups that attack them love it. I agree that it could be a bit better balanced but shorting the windows is a direct nerf to attackers and a supper buff to defenders. Strange I have no grudge with you or the imperium and IGÇÖve been fighting your canes for the past few days so I think your biases for large fights is showing here because it hasnGÇÖt been over a grudge or moons. If they bin the mechanic of sov and change it to something else, IGÇÖd be fine with it I am curious what would you like to see for a new sov mechanic and how would you like to see people engage in sov warfare?
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33455	Posted - 2016.03.18 06:48:35 - [52] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: Rain6637 wrote: A glaring symptom of this new sov system seems to be the opposite of the HP grind system. By limiting attackers to 1, you've also reduced the response to near 1. I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. Compare this to at least 50 duders required in the past, and entosis looks a lot like pure harassment. Now. I think it's clear this thread was started out of frustration and there's no way to spin that. It does prove my point, however, that entosis is probably not the type of thing customers enjoy. I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM. The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment. I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space. Small gang fights are fun but not the only gameplay eve should offer the massive wars are what brings a lot of players to the game and a style of gameplay that should not suffer just to give small gang fights more of a chance. However, the mechanics are what they are and if a better system or a new system was introduced it wouldnGÇÖt take long for people to complain again anyway That thought was in the back of my mind, that no matter the system players will find it uncomfortable. I think Sov should be determined by the portion of moons that are towered in a system. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2759	Posted - 2016.03.18 07:39:07 - [53] - Quote 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? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7408	Posted - 2016.03.18 07:51:34 - [54] - 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.
Karishnikov SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 2	Posted - 2016.03.18 08:25:57 - [55] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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. Attempting to own Sov is a two way thing, it can give you economic benefits, but also make you a target for enemies. You need to decide if it's worth it, and then if yes how to maintain your level of playstyle while going against others. Claiming that several hundred pilots beat out the second largest alliance in a broken mechanic that favors defenders just shows entitlement. If you truly want to own space and still be the size you are, fight for it, actually commit to it, don't just wallow in the background until something changes. In that case, will there be anything left for you?
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2759	Posted - 2016.03.18 08:32:37 - [56] - Quote I think that the GÇ£but the sandboxGÇ¥ claims are often overdone. Limits on player behaviour are clearly required as had been demonstrated at both the micro and macro level. This is because a healthy game ecosystem relies upon conflict and therefore self-organising behaviour by players which reduces this too much must be constrained. 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7408	Posted - 2016.03.18 10:08:05 - [57] - 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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 13:42:28 - [58] - Quote Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7409	Posted - 2016.03.18 14:44:49 - [59] - 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.
Karishnikov SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 2	Posted - 2016.03.18 14:57:30 - [60] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: You are able to read English, correct? #1 English all of, Fade 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.

Archeras Umangiar CRY.NET Nihilists Social Club 25	Posted - 2016.03.18 14:59:57 - [61] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks k
Buhhdust Princess Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 9410	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:15:16 - [62] - Quote RIP SMA o7 Noone will miss you.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7410	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:19:38 - [63] - 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.
Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19537	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:21:24 - [64] - 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? Something something "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game" Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. You (SMA) chose systems to claim. You chose the vulnerability windows. You're part of the largest coalition in the game. Get your shtako together. "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 84	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:27:31 - [65] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I figure the time difference is accounted for by an artist at CCP taking that first day to model the CCP character after the new CCP person. Because there's no way each and every CCP is so skilled at making their character in their likeness. Going down my list of birth dates I see that there is, in fact, a CCP born date that falls within my criteria. What are the odds? Posting in a "Hunt the CCP" thread, get in here GSF, RIOT TIME! /s You should at least tell us which CCP it is so we can see if you get banned :). As for 'nerf timers', you chose to live in an alliance that's shed it's PVPers for PVEers. Your alliance aimed for the situation you're in now. You have to be in it to Winet, is all I'm saying.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:27:40 - [66] - Quote Kryptik Kai wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it? Something something "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game" Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. You (SMA) chose systems to claim. You chose the vulnerability windows. You're part of the largest coalition in the game. Get your shtako together. Those comments coming from PH who didn't even defend 1 systems and moonwalked out BEFORE the announcement of our attack was made is pure gold. Can't you see the system at least have issue when your alliance decided to pack up and leave instead of even trying to defend it's systems? Why was reddit so proud of this? Was that move OP what you call "getting your shtako togethers"? I really want to know if you think that's how it's supposed to be done.
Cumbus Kanjus Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 6	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:28:16 - [67] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: ......... Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Thanks isn't the number of sov vulnerability timers up to you? and please dont forget there was a time when the mighty CFC created 50+ timers with SBUs. u could never save all of those timers. so how is that different now? only that now for the first time you are fighting a defence war and you cannot simply steamrol your enemy.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Pandemic Legion 591	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:29:30 - [68] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks Have you ever come across the proverb "You can't have your cake and eat it"? I think this applies to SMA.
Bubba Phet Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 2	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:32:51 - [69] - Quote Ah poor goons. Someone is playing the way they enjoy and it happens to **** you off at the same time? That sounds really familiar. Just remember you reap what you sow. P.S. Yea I know op is in sma, but anyone in cfc is goons.
Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19537	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:36:01 - [70] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Kryptik Kai wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it? Something something "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game" Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. You (SMA) chose systems to claim. You chose the vulnerability windows. You're part of the largest coalition in the game. Get your shtako together. Those comments coming from PH who didn't even defend 1 systems and moonwalked out BEFORE the announcement of our attack was made is pure gold. Can't you see the system at least have issue when your alliance decided to pack up and leave instead of even trying to defend it's systems? Why was reddit so proud of this? Was that move OP what you call "getting your shtako togethers"? I really want to know if you think that's how it's supposed to be done. You're talking about the bastard children of a nomadic alliance... in less than a year we've moved several times. What gives you the impression sov for us is more than just a place to hang our hats? Also, not sure why its "gold" as I don't recall us complaining about sov mechanics. If we had whined and were now making fun of SMA for whining then sure... but... nope. "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb

5pitf1re Black Omega Security The OSS 94	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:36:03 - [71] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks Genuine answer here. Trim down your sov to one constellation and hold one constellation. Sadly you'd have to convince people like winet and mittens.
Brutus Utama Fusion Enterprises Ltd Phoenix Company Alliance 62	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:39:09 - [72] - Quote Sorry OP but your in the second largest alliance in game and the largest coalition stop moaning about defending your **...if you dont want to defend it then move back to highsec.... its far easier to defend than attack the nodes regenerate on their own so if they truely dont want sov like you say then whats the issue the nodes will regen themselves? if you are unable to pull a small group together out of 3000+ people in alliance and 20k+ in coalition then you dont deserve the space just because you had the space before the new mechanics doesnt mean its your stop bitching about having to defend your space and do something about it.... if its only a small group then you shouldnt have an issue defending should you. if you want to mine in peace go to highsec, if you want to rat in peace go back to highsec... you should understand this when you moved out here this isnt highsec go defend your own ** or go home. your one of the largest groups about and your complaining about having to defend you dont see the smaller groups complaining they just deal with it or move on... this is a sandbox game you have to adapt to whats happening at any time...If you want to play exactly how you want there is games like farmville you can play...
Nigerian Banker Prince I Want ISK Corp 0	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:47:03 - [73] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: A glaring symptom of this new sov system seems to be the opposite of the HP grind system. By limiting attackers to 1, you've also reduced the response to near 1. I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. Compare this to at least 50 duders required in the past, and entosis looks a lot like pure harassment. Now. I think it's clear this thread was started out of frustration and there's no way to spin that. It does prove my point, however, that entosis is probably not the type of thing customers enjoy. I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM. The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment. I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space. I hear a lot of complaining from someone in a group that literally coined the term weaponized boredom. Your arguments are essentially moot because you have used similar tactics to dictate the engagement against your enemies in the past. Also, because this type of gameplay does nothing for you doesn't mean it is not enjoyable to others. Sure, having daily timers that you need to respond to is exhausting but that is sov warfare. HTFU and deal with it. Even your solutions are pretty cringeworthy. You essentially bringing back the N+1 formula that CCP worked on taking away. tldr; stop whining, HTFU, and do what everyone else in Eve has to do (figure this **** out).
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:48:46 - [74] - Quote Kryptik Kai wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Kryptik Kai wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it? Something something "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game" Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. You (SMA) chose systems to claim. You chose the vulnerability windows. You're part of the largest coalition in the game. Get your shtako together. Those comments coming from PH who didn't even defend 1 systems and moonwalked out BEFORE the announcement of our attack was made is pure gold. Can't you see the system at least have issue when your alliance decided to pack up and leave instead of even trying to defend it's systems? Why was reddit so proud of this? Was that move OP what you call "getting your shtako togethers"? I really want to know if you think that's how it's supposed to be done. You're talking about the bastard children of a nomadic alliance... in less than a year we've moved several times. What gives you the impression sov for us is more than just a place to hang our hats? Also, not sure why its "gold" as I don't recall us complaining about sov mechanics. If we had whined and were now making fun of SMA for whining then sure... but... nope. Of course you didn't complain since you didn't even try it. I think both side of the system are bad. Running to every boor bell in defense is stupid and being able to burn down an entire region in a week sound just as stupid to me. The entire thing right now has 2 way doing it. You completely overwhelm your opponent and burn his **** to the ground in one relatively quick way or you play ding dong ditch often enough to make their patience burn away. The system was supposed to prevent weaponized boredom but it's still a strategy people can employ.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7412	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:54:28 - [75] - 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.
Exdios Jar'go Steel Fleet Phoenix Company Alliance 6	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:55:15 - [76] - Quote It makes me laugh when I read the comments here, its so easy to see ego and smite coming out in some of the replies rather than actual meaningful discussion. Having been on both sides of the Entosis Mechanic with several alliances, I hate the bloody thing. I used to enjoy getting involved in the system bash, where proper fleets engaged over system timers. This "Hacking" of Timers just isn't Sov Warfare. Yes systems have become easier to attack, yes Defenders now have a reason to actually use the system, All good points, however we are seeing more and more harassment than actual warfare. The mechanic has gone from one of large scale alliance warfare where fleets were put head to head against each other and both attackers and defenders each had to commit forces to the field to force the objective, to one where defenders have everything to loose and attackers have nothing and the game mechanic has switched from warfare to Trolling and Tear farming. No matter what Alliance is defending, Campers, multiple single attackers, and Entosis saturation will wear down ANY Alliance, It will drive down ADM's, it will increase the vulnerability windows and eventually lead to the system being threatened, that is a given. However as the OP originally in a round about way pointed out, it also leads to burnout and frustration. Half the time now when these situations start, I just log off, not because I'm lazy or incompetent, but because I honestly have better things to do than sit here spending my limited hours of the day on Eve doing nothing but chasing single attackers away every 5 minutes. This system lends its support to the small gang attacker whos sole interest is to feed internet trolls and has no interest in Sov, no reason to use it, but to create harassment and feed the Reddit war because they get Tears. More immaturity than actual game play. What I want to see is proper warfare over systems again, Yes the old system favored the Big alliances and Coalitions, and ideally wasn't the best thing, but atleast it was fun and enjoyable and gave a reason to log in!, The current system while having good points, equals nothing but frustration, boredom and eventually leads to people logging off, or ignoring the timers until the point comes where they MUST show up to the timer to save the system, hence throwing overwhelming numbers just to saturate the system. I welcomed the new Sov mechanic when it arrived, because it was different and it offered an interesting change, however after fighting it from both sides for months I gave up on it, and stopped involving myself in it. I'm a Nullsec pilot, I have zero interest in highsec and Lowsec, I enjoy the Null environment however I'm finding myself logging into comms and ignoring the game more and more. My 2 cents.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:56:25 - [77] - Quote Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: I hear a lot of complaining from someone in a group that literally coined the term weaponized boredom. Your arguments are essentially moot because you have used similar tactics to dictate the engagement against your enemies in the past. Also, because this type of gameplay does nothing for you doesn't mean it is not enjoyable to others. Sure, having daily timers that you need to respond to is exhausting but that is sov warfare. HTFU and deal with it. Even your solutions are pretty cringeworthy. You essentially bringing back the N+1 formula that CCP worked on taking away. tldr; stop whining, HTFU, and do what everyone else in Eve has to do (figure this **** out). You do realize the current offensive strategy being used is just another N+! right? Instead of bringing N+1 ships, N+1 timers will be created and one side will decide it's not worth all the time burnt on it. The fact that generating a stupid amount of timer was used before does not mean it was not wrong back then and now. Just that nothing was made correctly to prevent this behavior from being effective.
Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19541	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:06:40 - [78] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Of course you didn't complain since you didn't even try it. I think both side of the system are bad. Running to every boor bell in defense is stupid and being able to burn down an entire region in a week sound just as stupid to me. The entire thing right now has 2 way doing it. You completely overwhelm your opponent and burn his **** to the ground in one relatively quick way or you play ding dong ditch often enough to make their patience burn away. The system was supposed to prevent weaponized boredom but it's still a strategy people can employ. It doesn't really matter what sov system is in place, 40k coalition vs 2k (at that time) newbro group was never going to be defended. Unless you wanted to us to hang around perma docked or just show newbros what its like to welp over and over again I'm not sure what you expected. As for the current system, yes, there are several ways for it to be played. Not sure why thats supposed to be a bad thing. "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance 921	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:10:53 - [79] - Quote thats content! isnt it fun forming up 10 - 20 fleets every day to sit around and jump gates?! I certainly love it. thanks fozzie 3 day old titan pilots, and endgame sov fought in intercepters. thats the eve i remember! "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Nigerian Banker Prince I Want ISK Corp 0	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:10:59 - [80] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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? 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. 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.

Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance 921	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:15:56 - [81] - Quote Kryptik Kai wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Could the problem be else where and those no commitment attack just be a symptom? Is there any of those group actually interested in taking SOV? If they are not, what are the reasons? While attacking something just for the hell of it is totally a valid EVE gameplay, is it what this really is about? Villages not worth taking but we'll throw a flaming torch at the wall every night for the hell of it? Something something "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin YOUR game" Seriously tho, while wandsov isn't particularly inspired, its still better than the bs that came before it. You (SMA) chose systems to claim. You chose the vulnerability windows. You're part of the largest coalition in the game. Get your shtako together. You only think its better than what came before, because you hold no sov and have no intention of holding sov. CCP created a gimmick for shitbrains to harass sov holders and force them to form 20 fleets a day to maintain sov from people who dont even want sov. That might be fun for the people who have NO INTENTION of taking the sov, but all it does is cause hundreds of other players to chug caffine to try and stay awake for the most boring fleets since highsec mining. Its rather absurd that a bunch of noobs in tech1 frigates can cause so many boring defense fleets from the biggest coalition in the game. "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
killerkeano Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 27	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:25:16 - [82] - Quote Oh no CCP we own several regions but we cant farm PVE to RMT to give RL cash for kickstarters, because someone laser attacked our Sov structures. Must suck logging in just to play crappy sov laser warfare! HAHAHAHAHAHA If you can't defend it, you don't deserve it!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7413	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:26:37 - [83] - 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.
killerkeano Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 27	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:27:21 - [84] - Quote HMmmmmm juicy CFC tears. so tasty you reap what you sow.
Eddiie Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 5	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:28:02 - [85] - Quote goons complaining about boredom and repetition ??? SUCK IT UP
Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19542	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:29:12 - [86] - Quote Terminal Insanity wrote: You only think its better than what came before, because you hold no sov and have no intention of holding sov. We don't have sov? Quote: You (horde) shouldnt be able to challenge sov Because screw the sandbox "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance 921	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:35:40 - [87] - Quote Kryptik Kai wrote: Terminal Insanity wrote: You only think its better than what came before, because you hold no sov and have no intention of holding sov. We don't have sov? Quote: You (horde) shouldnt be able to challenge sov Because screw the sandbox well ** i'd like to get rid of concord. can we do that too? "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature.**" - CCP
Terminal Insanity Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance 922	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:36:57 - [88] - Quote Eddiie wrote: goons complaining about boredom and repetition ??? SUCK IT UP Says the guys who reinforce a CSAA tower claiming it was to "generate content" and then dont show up to actually finish the job. That was highly enjoyable, sitting on a jumpbridge for 2 hours waiting for you to not show up. Great content 10/10 would fleet again "War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19543	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:37:30 - [89] - Quote Terminal Insanity wrote: Kryptik Kai wrote: Terminal Insanity wrote: You only think its better than what came before, because you hold no sov and have no intention of holding sov. We don't have sov? Quote: You (horde) shouldnt be able to challenge sov Because screw the sandbox well **** i'd like to get rid of concord. can we do that too? Concord doesn't stop gankers, whats your point? "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 24	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:39:23 - [90] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.

Puchoco Voluspa SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 12	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:47:43 - [91] - Quote SAFETIES RED PENISES ERECT SMA REKT
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 24	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:51:33 - [92] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: Rain6637 wrote: A glaring symptom of this new sov system seems to be the opposite of the HP grind system. By limiting attackers to 1, you've also reduced the response to near 1. I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. Compare this to at least 50 duders required in the past, and entosis looks a lot like pure harassment. Now. I think it's clear this thread was started out of frustration and there's no way to spin that. It does prove my point, however, that entosis is probably not the type of thing customers enjoy. I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM. The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment. I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space. Small gang fights are fun but not the only gameplay eve should offer the massive wars are what brings a lot of players to the game and a style of gameplay that should not suffer just to give small gang fights more of a chance. However, the mechanics are what they are and if a better system or a new system was introduced it wouldnGÇÖt take long for people to complain again anyway That thought was in the back of my mind, that no matter the system players will find it uncomfortable. I think Sov should be determined by the portion of moons that are towered in a system. I think they did that system before domminon sov. I wasn;t around back then but it could be intresting
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7414	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:53:55 - [93] - 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.
White 0rchid SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 9	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:56:01 - [94] - Quote Terminal Insanity wrote: This game has turned into a job, and its not fun. Maybe, just maybe, and I'm reaching here, you guys just have too many systems. With less systems and a smaller member base, I'm pretty sure you'd have an easier and more fun time defending. The reason you are all whinging is because your systems are so widespread and in your eyes it's a "hassle to go all that way to find an T1 frig trolling". If that was only a couple jumps I'm pretty sure you wouldn't care as much.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:56:18 - [95] - Quote killerkeano wrote: HMmmmmm juicy CFC tears. so tasty you reap what you sow. The issue I have with post like that is that it means I am not allowed to think as an individual. My though are supposedly always associated with my corp and alliance tag even if I have some position that would more than likely be against what the leaders think. I don't know if other corp/alliance have a line of post to follow or other stuff like that but I surely don't follow one and really hope you don't have to follow one either. TBH, I'n not unhappy toward any player currently playing the game how it is right now. This stupidity is the name of the game now so anyone not playing it like that would be shooting himself in the foot for no reason. Using weaponized boredom is effective so of course people will use it. The real question to me is, why the hell they they make a system where such terrible strategy cans till be used. When the CFC back in the previous SOV demonstrated that boredom could be a weapon, I though it was both a creative way of using the rules AND dropping a turd on the game in plain view. Doing it right now in the new way of doing it is just the same thing. It's using the rules how they are written while also shitting on the system. Both are just as bad imo.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 24	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:59:41 - [96] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: CCP should never limit people working together. I don't fly with the imperium but ccp should not break it apart just becuse it exsist. That would be a death sentance for the game. That's what people are leaning toward though. They like these mechanics because it allows even single players to pose a realistic threat to big groups because they hate the idea of a big group. Nothing any big group does really has an impact on other players, before I rented then joined the Imperium big groups existed but had absolutely no bearing on my day to day gameplay, but some people just can't handle the fact that these groups exist and it's those people these mechanics cater to. Thankfully I think CCP knows it's bad play and entosis has a limited shelf life. Entosising is deffernt then an artifical reduction of a groups ablity to work togther. entosising something dosn't mean sma cant work with the imperium anymore. If everyone can plau in sov then entosising is the best system we have right now. If not everyone can play with sov brinig back needing suppercaps. either way i'm fine with it. I'm currious though how many people do you think it should take to attack sov at a minimum?
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:12:53 - [97] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: CCP should never limit people working together. I don't fly with the imperium but ccp should not break it apart just becuse it exsist. That would be a death sentance for the game. That's what people are leaning toward though. They like these mechanics because it allows even single players to pose a realistic threat to big groups because they hate the idea of a big group. Nothing any big group does really has an impact on other players, before I rented then joined the Imperium big groups existed but had absolutely no bearing on my day to day gameplay, but some people just can't handle the fact that these groups exist and it's those people these mechanics cater to. Thankfully I think CCP knows it's bad play and entosis has a limited shelf life. Entosising is deffernt then an artifical reduction of a groups ablity to work togther. entosising something dosn't mean sma cant work with the imperium anymore. If everyone can plau in sov then entosising is the best system we have right now. If not everyone can play with sov brinig back needing suppercaps. either way i'm fine with it. I'm currious though how many people do you think it should take to attack sov at a minimum? I always though you should need a few cruiser or something like that personally since not being able to mount up a fleet like that essentially mean there is no way you could keep a system anyway so there is no point in letting you take one.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 345	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:13:56 - [98] - 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. P.S. FW is vulnerable for 23.5hrs, 7 days a week and can be attacked by any and all ship types. You don't hear us complaining about that. That's the entire reason we're in it in the first place.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7414	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:16:27 - [99] - 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.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 345	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:16:49 - [100] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: killerkeano wrote: HMmmmmm juicy CFC tears. so tasty you reap what you sow. The issue I have with post like that is that it means I am not allowed to think as an individual. My though are supposedly always associated with my corp and alliance tag even if I have some position that would more than likely be against what the leaders think. I don't know if other corp/alliance have a line of post to follow or other stuff like that but I surely don't follow one and really hope you don't have to follow one either. TBH, I'n not unhappy toward any player currently playing the game how it is right now. This stupidity is the name of the game now so anyone not playing it like that would be shooting himself in the foot for no reason. Using weaponized boredom is effective so of course people will use it. The real question to me is, why the hell they they make a system where such terrible strategy cans till be used. When the CFC back in the previous SOV demonstrated that boredom could be a weapon, I though it was both a creative way of using the rules AND dropping a turd on the game in plain view. Doing it right now in the new way of doing it is just the same thing. It's using the rules how they are written while also shitting on the system. Both are just as bad imo. "It's funny when we do it to other people, but now that they're doing it to us it's becoming old hat and nobody should do it anymore."

Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 24	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:19:38 - [101] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 24	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:20:24 - [102] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: CCP should never limit people working together. I don't fly with the imperium but ccp should not break it apart just becuse it exsist. That would be a death sentance for the game. That's what people are leaning toward though. They like these mechanics because it allows even single players to pose a realistic threat to big groups because they hate the idea of a big group. Nothing any big group does really has an impact on other players, before I rented then joined the Imperium big groups existed but had absolutely no bearing on my day to day gameplay, but some people just can't handle the fact that these groups exist and it's those people these mechanics cater to. Thankfully I think CCP knows it's bad play and entosis has a limited shelf life. Entosising is deffernt then an artifical reduction of a groups ablity to work togther. entosising something dosn't mean sma cant work with the imperium anymore. If everyone can plau in sov then entosising is the best system we have right now. If not everyone can play with sov brinig back needing suppercaps. either way i'm fine with it. I'm currious though how many people do you think it should take to attack sov at a minimum? I always though you should need a few cruiser or something like that personally since not being able to mount up a fleet like that essentially mean there is no way you could keep a system anyway so there is no point in letting you take one. A few cruisers could be a good requiremnt. Still low sp enofgh that everyone can play and cost a bit more then frigates
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7414	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:21:55 - [103] - 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 - [104] - 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.
WarFireV Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 432	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:25:07 - [105] - Quote Oh my sweet young ones. You have some much to experience to know what contesting sov is truly about. Why don't you go and take the dronelands, twice. Then let me see how you appreciate what you have.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 24	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:25:16 - [106] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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 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.
Nigerian Banker Prince I Want ISK Corp 1	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:29:06 - [107] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: I hear a lot of complaining from someone in a group that literally coined the term weaponized boredom. Your arguments are essentially moot because you have used similar tactics to dictate the engagement against your enemies in the past. Also, because this type of gameplay does nothing for you doesn't mean it is not enjoyable to others. Sure, having daily timers that you need to respond to is exhausting but that is sov warfare. HTFU and deal with it. Even your solutions are pretty cringeworthy. You essentially bringing back the N+1 formula that CCP worked on taking away. tldr; stop whining, HTFU, and do what everyone else in Eve has to do (figure this **** out). You do realize the current offensive strategy being used is just another N+! right? Instead of bringing N+1 ships, N+1 timers will be created and one side will decide it's not worth all the time burnt on it. The fact that generating a stupid amount of timer was used before does not mean it was not wrong back then and now. Just that nothing was made correctly to prevent this behavior from being effective. The current mechanics didn't invent this. All of the old mechanics had the same thing. Pre-Dominion sov had towers. You put down as many as you could if you were the defenders and dickstar them. At that time it would literally take a day or longer just to RF enough of the towers to contest one system. The defenders could set up all the dickstars and start evacing stuff or setting up ambushes. This current sov mechanic is much much much better than that. Now you are complaining because the defenders have to send out small gangs to hunt attackers that are entosising as much stuff as they can. Here is a hint.....if you cannot send out enough dudes to kill the entosis peeps or set up effective choke points, then you don't deserve your space.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:29:39 - [108] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Yun Kuai wrote: Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: Maintain less Sov. This and more this. If you're complaining about the number of timers then you're holding on to too much space. Less space, less to defend, more time to unblue yourself from the blue doughnut, more time to actually PvP in the "lawless" space that is nullsec. P.S. FW is vulnerable for 23.5hrs, 7 days a week and can be attacked by any and all ship types. You don't hear us complaining about that. That's the entire reason we're in it in the first place. Being vulnerable 23.5/7 is not as bad as it looks when you realize even with all stars aligning for you, it will still involve many hours to take a system. You can easily let the other side PLEX to 75% and then send a fleet and fight over the rest. If we leave that much time in SOV, it's over, the structure got hacked and the system fell.
Nigerian Banker Prince I Want ISK Corp 1	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:33:09 - [109] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Yun Kuai wrote: Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: Maintain less Sov. This and more this. If you're complaining about the number of timers then you're holding on to too much space. Less space, less to defend, more time to unblue yourself from the blue doughnut, more time to actually PvP in the "lawless" space that is nullsec. P.S. FW is vulnerable for 23.5hrs, 7 days a week and can be attacked by any and all ship types. You don't hear us complaining about that. That's the entire reason we're in it in the first place. Being vulnerable 23.5/7 is not as bad as it looks when you realize even with all stars aligning for you, it will still involve many hours to take a system. You can easily let the other side PLEX to 75% and then send a fleet and fight over the rest. If we leave that much time in SOV, it's over, the structure got hacked and the system fell. No, the structure got hacked and you have a timer....see you in a day or two.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:42:42 - [110] - Quote Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: I hear a lot of complaining from someone in a group that literally coined the term weaponized boredom. Your arguments are essentially moot because you have used similar tactics to dictate the engagement against your enemies in the past. Also, because this type of gameplay does nothing for you doesn't mean it is not enjoyable to others. Sure, having daily timers that you need to respond to is exhausting but that is sov warfare. HTFU and deal with it. Even your solutions are pretty cringeworthy. You essentially bringing back the N+1 formula that CCP worked on taking away. tldr; stop whining, HTFU, and do what everyone else in Eve has to do (figure this ** out). You do realize the current offensive strategy being used is just another N+! right? Instead of bringing N+1 ships, N+1 timers will be created and one side will decide it's not worth all the time burnt on it. The fact that generating a stupid amount of timer was used before does not mean it was not wrong back then and now. Just that nothing was made correctly to prevent this behavior from being effective. The current mechanics didn't invent this. All of the old mechanics had the same thing. Pre-Dominion sov had towers. You put down as many as you could if you were the defenders and dickstar them. At that time it would literally take a day or longer just to RF enough of the towers to contest one system. The defenders could set up all the dickstars and start evacing stuff or setting up ambushes. This current sov mechanic is much much much better than that. Now you are complaining because the defenders have to send out small gangs to hunt attackers that are entosising as much stuff as they can. Here is a hint.....if you cannot send out enough dudes to kill the entosis peeps or set up effective choke points, then you don't deserve your space. Last time I checked, we were still winning most of the timers so we would still be able to send enough dude. That does not mean the system is a good one. I still think reinforcing 40 structure at the same time or SBUing 20 system was playing the rules in a stupid way but I can't do anything about the past. It's stupid and was stupid because in both case, an actual takeover of all of this was and is only possible if the other side fail-cascade so you no longer need your fleet together. The rest is just fluff to ** off the other side and force them into clean-up OPS because is slowly but surely drain his will to play this game. In all of those case, you were not beating your enemy by fighting him but by fighting his resolve to play a game in an un-fun way. The new SOV system was slated to be a move against that. Since it has now been demonstrated that it didn't work, I think iteration should be discussed/worked on. Unless people are gonna say it's ok now. I mean, if people are OK with weaponized boredom, then the game should stay like that but I think it's a stupid way of setting up a game.

Nigerian Banker Prince I Want ISK Corp 1	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:49:15 - [111] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: I hear a lot of complaining from someone in a group that literally coined the term weaponized boredom. Your arguments are essentially moot because you have used similar tactics to dictate the engagement against your enemies in the past. Also, because this type of gameplay does nothing for you doesn't mean it is not enjoyable to others. Sure, having daily timers that you need to respond to is exhausting but that is sov warfare. HTFU and deal with it. Even your solutions are pretty cringeworthy. You essentially bringing back the N+1 formula that CCP worked on taking away. tldr; stop whining, HTFU, and do what everyone else in Eve has to do (figure this ** out). You do realize the current offensive strategy being used is just another N+! right? Instead of bringing N+1 ships, N+1 timers will be created and one side will decide it's not worth all the time burnt on it. The fact that generating a stupid amount of timer was used before does not mean it was not wrong back then and now. Just that nothing was made correctly to prevent this behavior from being effective. The current mechanics didn't invent this. All of the old mechanics had the same thing. Pre-Dominion sov had towers. You put down as many as you could if you were the defenders and dickstar them. At that time it would literally take a day or longer just to RF enough of the towers to contest one system. The defenders could set up all the dickstars and start evacing stuff or setting up ambushes. This current sov mechanic is much much much better than that. Now you are complaining because the defenders have to send out small gangs to hunt attackers that are entosising as much stuff as they can. Here is a hint.....if you cannot send out enough dudes to kill the entosis peeps or set up effective choke points, then you don't deserve your space. Last time I checked, we were still winning most of the timers so we would still be able to send enough dude. That does not mean the system is a good one. I still think reinforcing 40 structure at the same time or SBUing 20 system was playing the rules in a stupid way but I can't do anything about the past. It's stupid and was stupid because in both case, an actual takeover of all of this was and is only possible if the other side fail-cascade so you no longer need your fleet together. The rest is just fluff to ** off the other side and force them into clean-up OPS because is slowly but surely drain his will to play this game. In all of those case, you were not beating your enemy by fighting him but by fighting his resolve to play a game in an un-fun way. The new SOV system was slated to be a move against that. Since it has now been demonstrated that it didn't work, I think iteration should be discussed/worked on. Unless people are gonna say it's ok now. I mean, if people are OK with weaponized boredom, then the game should stay like that but I think it's a stupid way of setting up a game. Yes you are winning most timers....but your allies are dying internally in the process. The whole weaponized boredom isn't a 'oh it's okay now' sorta thing....it is a 'you reap what you sow' sort of thing.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:50:40 - [112] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: killerkeano wrote: HMmmmmm juicy CFC tears. so tasty you reap what you sow. The issue I have with post like that is that it means I am not allowed to think as an individual. My though are supposedly always associated with my corp and alliance tag even if I have some position that would more than likely be against what the leaders think. I don't know if other corp/alliance have a line of post to follow or other stuff like that but I surely don't follow one and really hope you don't have to follow one either. TBH, I'n not unhappy toward any player currently playing the game how it is right now. This stupidity is the name of the game now so anyone not playing it like that would be shooting himself in the foot for no reason. Using weaponized boredom is effective so of course people will use it. The real question to me is, why the hell they they make a system where such terrible strategy cans till be used. When the CFC back in the previous SOV demonstrated that boredom could be a weapon, I though it was both a creative way of using the rules AND dropping a turd on the game in plain view. Doing it right now in the new way of doing it is just the same thing. It's using the rules how they are written while also shitting on the system. Both are just as bad imo. "It's funny when we do it to other people, but now that they're doing it to us it's becoming old hat and nobody should do it anymore." WRONG. It was never good gameplay or fun. Other people might have though it was but not I. It was an efficient one and still is but that's still isn't good. If you think I was ok with weaponized boredom before, then you are not comprehending what I am trying to say correctly. It might be my english but I really never though it was good gameplay. Not playing should never have been and never should be an effective strategy to the game.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:00:13 - [113] - Quote Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: Yes you are winning most timers....but your allies are dying internally in the process. The whole weaponized boredom isn't a 'oh it's okay now' sorta thing....it is a 'you reap what you sow' sort of thing. I know the organisation is effectively reaping what they sow. I do not condemn anyone for doing it. It's efficient gameplay to achieve an objective and EVE has always been about using whatever mean to achieve what you want. What I will condem is who made the system how it is since it once AGAIN enable a form of play that is again beating the opposition out of boredom. I honestly wish nobody ever even had the though that they should bore their opponent to death in game. It's like someone invented cancer and now we can't get rid of it. Cancer was ** back then and is still ** right now. Please god rid us of cancer and kill it every single time anyone find a new way to re-create it, be it my friends or my enemy.
Travis Uchonela Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 45	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:00:42 - [114] - Quote Terminal Insanity wrote: You (horde) shouldnt be able to challenge sov This is the real TL:DR for where all these tears are coming from, btw.
Sootsia High Flyers Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:01:02 - [115] - Quote Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: Maintain less Sov. +1 Time for the Clusterfuck Coalition to disband.... I mean the Imperatives... or whatever they call themselves these days... If its too much to handle.... get out of SOV holding just to support someone else's ego and not your play style. There are plenty of Rental Systems you can obtain, where you can rat in peace and SOV is someone else's problem for less than the taxes your paying now.
Eddiie Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 5	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:05:28 - [116] - Quote Terminal Insanity wrote: Eddiie wrote: goons complaining about boredom and repetition ??? SUCK IT UP Says the guys who reinforce a CSAA tower claiming it was to "generate content" and then dont show up to actually finish the job. That was highly enjoyable, sitting on a jumpbridge for 2 hours waiting for you to not show up. Great content 10/10 would fleet again THE BURN. OUCHSTOPIT
Dodo Veetee Jump Drive Appreciation Society 27	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:17:07 - [117] - Quote Yo, I have a solution for you. It's really simple, actually. 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. 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. Just because your alliance sucks and everyone else is getting paid to beat on you, that doesn't mean the devs should go easy on you. Maybe your alliance leaders shouldn't have been such fuccbois to other people and ** on their website/steal from them. Now, the real easy way for you, as a line member, is drop that bad alliance and go join somewhere you find fun. If you don't want to, it's fine, go defend 20 sov timers against exodus/horde while your teeth gets kicked in and you keep bleeding members. Remember, it's your own fault you're getting targeted, not the devs. So deal with it.
Nigerian Banker Prince I Want ISK Corp 1	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:24:17 - [118] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: Yes you are winning most timers....but your allies are dying internally in the process. The whole weaponized boredom isn't a 'oh it's okay now' sorta thing....it is a 'you reap what you sow' sort of thing. I know the organisation is effectively reaping what they sow. I do not condemn anyone for doing it. It's efficient gameplay to achieve an objective and EVE has always been about using whatever mean to achieve what you want. What I will condem is who made the system how it is since it once AGAIN enable a form of play that is again beating the opposition out of boredom. I honestly wish nobody ever even had the though that they should bore their opponent to death in game. It's like someone invented cancer and now we can't get rid of it. Cancer was ** back then and is still ** right now. Please god rid us of cancer and kill it every single time anyone find a new way to re-create it, be it my friends or my enemy. I agree with you on all points....but sadly I don't remember you or many other Goons (if any) making these statements when the system was in their favor. That is why most of these arguments are moot and also why there is a lot of hostility towards CFC members here in this thread. Sure you make good arguments but because you are on the receiving end this time, they seem hypocritical.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2698	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:38:31 - [119] - Quote Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Nigerian Banker Prince wrote: Yes you are winning most timers....but your allies are dying internally in the process. The whole weaponized boredom isn't a 'oh it's okay now' sorta thing....it is a 'you reap what you sow' sort of thing. I know the organisation is effectively reaping what they sow. I do not condemn anyone for doing it. It's efficient gameplay to achieve an objective and EVE has always been about using whatever mean to achieve what you want. What I will condem is who made the system how it is since it once AGAIN enable a form of play that is again beating the opposition out of boredom. I honestly wish nobody ever even had the though that they should bore their opponent to death in game. It's like someone invented cancer and now we can't get rid of it. Cancer was ** back then and is still ** right now. Please god rid us of cancer and kill it every single time anyone find a new way to re-create it, be it my friends or my enemy. I agree with you on all points....but sadly I don't remember you or many other Goons (if any) making these statements when the system was in their favor. That is why most of these arguments are moot and also why there is a lot of hostility towards CFC members here in this thread. Sure you make good arguments but because you are on the receiving end this time, they seem hypocritical. I was not there during siege fleet for example. I get your feeling tho. I really wish more people would recognize it was just as stupid back then. This game has problem that might never get solved correctly because the "winning" side of the issue usually is to smug to admit they are winning because it's broken. The current fun/hours battle is probably WAY in horde and co's favor and they will probably milk it for all they can because it's how people EVE. You never know when you will be on the receiving end of it. People instead should just be mad about any systems that are like that because it does not make for a great game anyway. The memorable event of EVE didn't happen on night were blueballing was going on. Nothing really great happened in EVE while one side was docked while the other side did a clean-up operation while thinking why they even logged to this boring game of rep the tower, rep the station, burn the SBU and other stuff like that.
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 6815	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:45:03 - [120] - Quote Its a problem of battlefield. Some battlefields pronote different tactics, that are favored by one side, not the other. If every side fights with the same tactics, it comes down to attrition warfare. The side with more resources win then. People tend to follow the tactic that works, but also try to avoid the attrition, because it leads to depletion of every resource, time, man, everything. So it just blueball everyone or thunderdome if you have the same battlewfield the same time all the time. Maybe If we could shape the battlefield to our tactics, or choose the battlefield we like most, then more people would consider it leveled out for them, because they would have their favorite strong points occupied as they like. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò

Lasse R Farnsworth Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 21	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:03:56 - [121] - Quote Well if you can't handle sov , just join RvB ;) We got rid of our last poco .. so no mre timers for you. Just saying ;)
Nou Mene Out of Focus Odin's Call 16	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:36:49 - [122] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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...
Seraph IX Basarab Angry Dragons Psychotic Tendencies. 775	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:47:38 - [123] - Quote Why can't I have my cake and eat it too! I'm entitled! I deserve everything! House of Black and White An ingame channel dedicated to more interesting ways to play
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7415	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:48:33 - [124] - 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.
Travis Uchonela Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 51	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:49:50 - [125] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Sequester Risalo wrote: Rain6637 wrote: I can show up and jam the attacker, damp them, or shoot them. What I've found after several quick response fleets is the attackers are mostly Exodus small gangs ringing a doorbell. That type of gameplay does nothing for me, but I can appreciate their good fortune through game design. 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. FYI you're posting on a character in an industry corp with two lowsec Nighthawk losses, w/ pods. It's times like this I pretend you're a dev. There's something about a smug forum retort that just feels different. So I start to investigate. Your corp has 8 characters, and three of them were born within a day of each other, from 2014/03/27 to 2014/03/28. Devs are also given three accounts to play for free, for "gameplay experience." Take one CCP character from the possible 9, and there's your 8 character corp. Now let's look at that date 2014/03/27 and compare it to the list of CCP characters and their born dates. What are the odds that Sequestor Risalo is born, say, within 24 hours of a CCP. I figure the time difference is accounted for by an artist at CCP taking that first day to model the CCP character after the new CCP person. Because there's no way each and every CCP is so skilled at making their character in their likeness. Going down my list of birth dates I see that there is, in fact, a CCP born date that falls within my criteria. What are the odds? Xenuria is rubbing off on all of you
Travis Uchonela Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 51	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:00:51 - [126] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: I was not there during siege fleet for example. I get your feeling tho. I really wish more people would recognize it was just as stupid back then. Take it up with your spaceboss. They referred to hours of frustrating grinding in bombers as their "Siegefleet Culture." Your Coalition's entire identity is about winning sov war at all cost. I appreciate where you're coming from but I'm not sure joining the "Helldunk or Blueball" side is ever going to be satisfying to you. There isn't a system were people aren't going to play to win and avoid losses at all cost anyway. Quote: The current fun/hours battle is probably WAY in horde and co's favor and they will probably milk it for all they can because it's how people EVE. You never know when you will be on the receiving end of it. The fun/hours battle will always favor Horde, because that's the only thing Horde really cares about. You talk like Horde has never been on the defensive side of things. The fights over Content Ring with SMA were more often than not defensive timers for Horde, and all anyone remembers about those is that they were a lot of fun. Horde lost a few systems to SMA of all people as soon as they deployed; they just didn't weep about it because that's the cost of choosing not to defend your space. Horde has had a lot of fun in defensive fights, and that was before passive regen. Quote: The memorable event of EVE didn't happen on night were blueballing was going on. Nothing really great happened in EVE while one side was docked while the other side did a clean-up operation while thinking why they even logged to this boring game of rep the tower, rep the station, burn the SBU and other stuff like that. The memorable events of ever are almost never fun. 6vdt was one of the least fun video game experiences I've ever had, but it was memorable and interesting to be a part of. For the most part, sov fights are always going to be more interesting than fun.
Nou Mene Out of Focus Odin's Call 16	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:12:26 - [127] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Ok, my definition of action might be strange to some, but, if i have someone running an entosis in my system or lets say a 2-3 systems around, i get to hunt, which is "action" the way i see it. I get to bubble my chokes, and choose the right counter to him. I might have reinforcements if he chooses to call for their own. Now, I get this is not "action" for everyone. About the water analogy, I guess you did your part by posting it. I dont know how much you can get in return. Theres no plumber; or, everyone wants their ceiling wet; or, water company is happy to charge for all that water... whatever. 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.
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:20:37 - [128] - Quote classic lucas kell posting lies, misinformation and/or strawmen to make his nullbabby life as easy as possible
CBBOMBERMAN Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 5	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:30:55 - [129] - Quote This is solved very easily. Cut down on systems you don't use/have no presence. Done. No more headaches, no more timers. Front lines are meant to be under constant attack.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2759	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:42:38 - [130] - Quote It seems that SMA is holding too much space for their (mostly PvE) members to defend. Ideally, they would be able to turtle up around their capital system with sov mechanics allowing systems to be meaningfully upgraded around a central constellation. But that should penalise the rest of the region. Also, sov should be attractive enough, or necessary enough, that powerful entities reach the conclusion that they need it. I really dislike the current style of nomadic alliances freely attacking anyone around the map with few important assets at risk. It disincentives those who DO want to hold sov to buy cheap laughs for those who do not. We might see a bit of a shift in this direction when supers need to be stored at citadels (when POS disappear) but that would only be a start. We are still missing an answer to the fundamental question of why anyone should bother to hold sov. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Travis Uchonela Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 52	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:01:21 - [131] - Quote Zappity wrote: It seems that SMA is holding too much space for their (mostly PvE) members to defend. Ideally, they would be able to turtle up around their capital system with sov mechanics allowing systems to be meaningfully upgraded around a central constellation. But that should penalise the rest of the region. Also, sov should be attractive enough, or necessary enough, that powerful entities reach the conclusion that they need it. I really dislike the current style of nomadic alliances freely attacking anyone around the map with few important assets at risk. It disincentives those who DO want to hold sov to buy cheap laughs for those who do not. We might see a bit of a shift in this direction when supers need to be stored at citadels (when POS disappear) but that would only be a start. We are still missing an answer to the fundamental question of why anyone should bother to hold sov. Agreed that there needs to be more benefit to owning and holding sov, but nomadic alliances won't go anywhere. It's a lot of fun and most groups like PL that do it are wealthy enough on a player level that there aren't really mechanic changes that would force us to settle down in null. It's just not our thing.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2759	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:14:20 - [132] - Quote Travis Uchonela wrote: Zappity wrote: It seems that SMA is holding too much space for their (mostly PvE) members to defend. Ideally, they would be able to turtle up around their capital system with sov mechanics allowing systems to be meaningfully upgraded around a central constellation. But that should penalise the rest of the region. Also, sov should be attractive enough, or necessary enough, that powerful entities reach the conclusion that they need it. I really dislike the current style of nomadic alliances freely attacking anyone around the map with few important assets at risk. It disincentives those who DO want to hold sov to buy cheap laughs for those who do not. We might see a bit of a shift in this direction when supers need to be stored at citadels (when POS disappear) but that would only be a start. We are still missing an answer to the fundamental question of why anyone should bother to hold sov. Agreed that there needs to be more benefit to owning and holding sov, but nomadic alliances won't go anywhere. It's a lot of fun and most groups like PL that do it are wealthy enough on a player level that there aren't really mechanic changes that would force us to settle down in null. It's just not our thing. That's a fair comment. I think that having valuable, destructible assets (citadels) regardless of sov ownership would probably tick the same box. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7416	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:16:22 - [133] - 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.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2759	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:21:13 - [134] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Or complaining noisily about it on the forum. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:25:50 - [135] - Quote "grr system is too hard to hold sov, yet our enemies are wholly incompetent and we're holding our sov just fine" lmao holding systems is hella easy if you only hold the ones you need
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 3722	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:30:10 - [136] - Quote Neadayan Drakhon wrote: or go back to Sov always being vulnerable... never made sense to me to only have windows of vulnerability This. Citadels are going to make it even worse. Magically invulnerable structures that magically get HP back when you stop shooting them instead needing logi support. For a game that bills itself on how every action matters, there are now massive chunks of time where your actions are useless. If you want to hold sov, you should be able to defend it. If you can't defend it, join an organization that can. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Tiberian Deci Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 167	Posted - 2016.03.18 22:23:58 - [137] - Quote ITT: Entitled CFC Alliance members complaining they're getting their **** pushed in. Now to be fair, there are some valid complaints to be made and discussions to be had about the current "low buy-in" of attacking someone's sov. However what they don't seem to realize is that they created a game where this had to be done. With the CFC topping out at some 40,000 members they buy in for anyone to attack them was astronomical. This new sov system was a response to a game where the metagame ruled, and far too few had power over far too many. While that hasn't been completely remedied, it has however made it possible for smaller groups to successfully attack sov without needing as much of the advanced coordination and infrastructure that made the CFC so powerful. But let's look at the events of this war. TISHU/Horde started with cloaky camping and Blopsing, then started skirmishing with the sov owner, and now have managed to even win a couple sov timers. And this has all taken weeks? Months even? That seems fairly reasonable. I think what CFC members are really taking issue with is this: someone has managed to crack that aura of invincibility and now there is blood in the water, and with blood in the water the attacks accelerate. Perceived weakness is exacerbated by the fairweather members/ carebears leaving for brighter pastures, "slopes for the slope throne" if you will. For anyone complaining about those goings on all I have to say is what you so graciously told anyone who complained they couldn't attack you in the past because of your allies: git gud. This is Eve. No one is going to hold your hand. If your alliance isn't strong enough to hold sov on it's own, then you don't deserve to hold the sov. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can start the process of improving (providing Mittens lets you).
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.18 22:56:52 - [138] - 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.
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 324	Posted - 2016.03.18 23:05:45 - [139] - Quote so i flew through SMA space and most of it was empty seems like the system is working as intended tbh time to shed the systems you don't need if you can't handle fighting for them
Another Posting Alt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 141	Posted - 2016.03.18 23:07:37 - [140] - Quote Certain alliances currently have a policy of entosising as much of certain other alliance's holdings as possible. Just to annoy them out of their space. Guess it's working. Thanks for the salt OP.

Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19560	Posted - 2016.03.18 23:31:54 - [141] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: just a bunch of nobodies crying that they couldn't defeat their enemies /thread "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
killerkeano Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 28	Posted - 2016.03.18 23:50:15 - [142] - Quote without CFC SMA would be nothing even bastion take the p1ss out of you guys
Karishnikov SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 2	Posted - 2016.03.18 23:52:10 - [143] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Do you even understand English?
Tiberian Deci Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 167	Posted - 2016.03.19 04:59:58 - [144] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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 your 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. 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.
Poopicus Butts Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 8	Posted - 2016.03.19 05:14:47 - [145] - Quote Posting just to have a post in this legendary thread
Jahre Vannyn Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.03.19 05:23:29 - [146] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Yeah I feel like calling it guerrilla tactics lends it more credibility than it deserves. Um... "Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military." You know, just in case you wanted to know what wikipedia says.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.19 08:58:12 - [147] - 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.
Taura Ariel What The Hel. 0	Posted - 2016.03.19 09:31:33 - [148] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks Is there anybody here who remembers the Tribute war of 2012, when the CFC evicted NC. from Tribute and Vale? The war went like this: The CFC had complete superiority in US and EU timezones, so NC. set their timers to AU where the numbers were more even. After weeks of fighting and losing in AUTZ CFC command hit on a new plan: they told their AUTZ not to form up, and EU and US timezones created dozens of timers every day for the NC. AUTZ to rep. Eventually the NC. bros got sick of it and left, allowing the CFC to capture the sov. Those guys had families too, and their sov was vulnerable 23.5/7, not just in their strongest timezone. They couldn't even save uncontested timers with frigates, they had to use and risk capitals. What the hell are you complaining about?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.19 10:02:11 - [149] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33463	Posted - 2016.03.19 10:26:45 - [150] - Quote What happened to the idea of entosising a ship until the capsule popped out? That sounds fun possibly. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33463	Posted - 2016.03.19 10:32:22 - [151] - Quote killerkeano wrote: without CFC SMA would be nothing even bastion take the p1ss out of you guys It's sad to find out some players don't understand how you can develop real bonds with people in your coalition, or even friendships strong enough that you'd be willing to watch their back. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33463	Posted - 2016.03.19 10:33:07 - [152] - Quote XOXO Kain Felmont what's up my n-word Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Kain Felmont Systems High Guard SpaceMonkey's Alliance 1	Posted - 2016.03.19 10:49:19 - [153] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: XOXO Kain Felmont what's up my n-word Going through withdrawals not shooting structures (RIP SBUs) Love you Rain!
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33463	Posted - 2016.03.19 10:49:23 - [154] - Quote today you tomorrow me etc Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
CBBOMBERMAN Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 8	Posted - 2016.03.19 11:15:48 - [155] - Quote Got to love this waterfall of tears from the CFC. Please change the title of the thread from: "Please reduce the number of SOV timers" To "CCP please help me survive the war vs the allies"
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33463	Posted - 2016.03.19 11:19:21 - [156] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/u3yl9G7.png Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33463	Posted - 2016.03.19 11:46:48 - [157] - Quote CBBOMBERMAN wrote: Got to love this waterfall of tears from the CFC. Please change the title of the thread from: "Please reduce the number of SOV timers" To "CCP please help me survive the war vs the allies" But isn't it nice when threads don't get flushed down the toilet every day? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19598	Posted - 2016.03.19 14:30:31 - [158] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: CBBOMBERMAN wrote: Got to love this waterfall of tears from the CFC. Please change the title of the thread from: "Please reduce the number of SOV timers" To "CCP please help me survive the war vs the allies" But isn't it nice when threads don't get flushed down the toilet every day? Well at least you understand that this thread started in the toilet Honestly... largest coalition in the game by far complaining that they can't cover some timers... ffs "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33464	Posted - 2016.03.19 14:53:12 - [159] - Quote I miss Querious Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Jahre Vannyn Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 1	Posted - 2016.03.19 15:54:29 - [160] - Quote I need some clarification, please. You are saying that no one in the game should have the audacity to attack your positions if they are not fielding large capital fleets. That there is no room in this game for the smaller tactical ships to cause your alliance any discomfort or annoyance. That is precisely why that tactic is used against you, and will continue to be used. You believe military might through massive projection of power is going to win every encounter. You may be able to look into a couple of military operations from the past in places called Vietnam and Afghanistan to see where your philosophy will fail. War is not always large decisive victories. It is often attrition, and sapping the will of the defenders to fight. Combat tactics evolve. If you can not, or will not adapt to it, then you will eventually fall. That is not a fault in a game mechanic, that is a fault in the player.

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33464	Posted - 2016.03.19 17:34:30 - [161] - Quote Jahre Vannyn wrote: I need some clarification, please. You are saying that no one in the game should have the audacity to attack your positions if they are not fielding large capital fleets. That there is no room in this game for the smaller tactical ships to cause your alliance any discomfort or annoyance. That is precisely why that tactic is used against you, and will continue to be used. You believe military might through massive projection of power is going to win every encounter. You may be able to look into a couple of military operations from the past in places called Vietnam and Afghanistan to see where your philosophy will fail. War is not always large decisive victories. It is often attrition, and sapping the will of the defenders to fight. Combat tactics evolve. If you can not, or will not adapt to it, then you will eventually fall. That is not a fault in a game mechanic, that is a fault in the player. :wtc: Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33471	Posted - 2016.03.19 17:35:39 - [162] - Quote That's all narrative that is in your head from other sources, not me. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 25	Posted - 2016.03.20 01:49:13 - [163] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. you might not enjoy it but so far in both cloud ring and fade i'm having fun with it. granted i don't own sov or live in sov but at the same time. three days of actual playing with timers three days of big fights. Multiple fleets to fight and have fun agaisnt. caps and suppercaps being thrown around. So far i think this is producing more action then has happened in a long time. the attacker if they don't already own sov can always choose to show up or not show up. occupancy based sov would have complaints against it as well. 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. does the attacker fell like ganking a freighter today yes or no. does an attack fell like droping caps today yes or no. if the attacker dosn't fell like it they dont have to as a defender you have to respond to what an attacker does. same goes for all parts of space.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.20 02:13:23 - [164] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 25	Posted - 2016.03.20 03:28:34 - [165] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? it happens in all areas of space not seeing how null is any different. I have no goals i just fight my only motivation is fighting and i don't care who i'm fighting so for me it will never realy matter what sov mechanic it is. sov wanding is no different then station grinding. shooting a pos is no different then entosising. It's alll prety much the same. 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. 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. I honestly have no skin in the game for sov or for this supposed big war thats everyones talking about. 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.
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 316	Posted - 2016.03.20 04:58:45 - [166] - Quote So your complaining that sov timers need to be shorted because you are employed.... lets flip this.... Sov timers get shortened and expire while you and the rest of the alliance are asleep/work/school whatever, you lose large amounts of space/pos due to timers being shorter and are forced out of null due to loss of sov The Sov timers aren't there to benefit your short attention span or because you only have a few hours to play. it allows enemy fleets to respond if they do respond, allows people to own sov that do have a life and not just benefit those that don't. if you don't like sov timers don't shoot things to just wait around "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7419	Posted - 2016.03.20 12:09:31 - [167] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33478	Posted - 2016.03.20 12:34:22 - [168] - Quote Agondray wrote: So your complaining that sov timers need to be shorted because you are employed.... lets flip this.... Sov timers get shortened and expire while you and the rest of the alliance are asleep/work/school whatever, you lose large amounts of space/pos due to timers being shorter and are forced out of null due to loss of sov The Sov timers aren't there to benefit your short attention span or because you only have a few hours to play. it allows enemy fleets to respond if they do respond, allows people to own sov that do have a life and not just benefit those that don't. if you don't like sov timers don't shoot things to just wait around Ignore OP, they haven't accepted that you pick between a job or sov, and you don't get to have both. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Kryptik Kai Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19618	Posted - 2016.03.20 12:46:27 - [169] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Ignore OP, they haven't accepted that you pick between a job or sov, and you don't get to have both. Again implying that the largest coalition in the game can't find the players to cover timers "Shiny.-á Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb
CBBOMBERMAN Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 9	Posted - 2016.03.20 12:55:40 - [170] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Ignore OP, they haven't accepted that you pick between a job or sov, and you don't get to have both. lol. Really this is what the crying has come to? If you cant cover the timezone, switch the timezone to a time where numbers are higher. See, I fix it for you. Otherwise drop sov on systems you clearly cant defend cos dont have the bodies and concentrate on the ones you can. EZ You guys are spreading yourselves too thin and on top of that, you are been attacked by many different entities united to bring you down. That the key too all your troubles.

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33478	Posted - 2016.03.20 14:02:25 - [171] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/FEtD4LP.png Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 25	Posted - 2016.03.20 18:18:35 - [172] - Quote I would like to point out that this thread seems to have sparked the most discussion about game mechanics and conflict generators. That i've seen and were actual able to have a discussion here over it that alone makes fozzie sov worth it before if you tried to discuss anything it got span as propaganda at least here we cana ctual talk about it. The idea of having sov or having a job is kind of a mute point as well. Either you have the people to defend and can rotate through them or you dont. Anyone here do almra clock ops and the like it the smae principle. The idea of living out of a citadel over a station is great i just wish people loist everything if they died so there was a far greater risk associated with how powerful they are looking at being form the test numbers ive seen.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1003	Posted - 2016.03.20 18:37:05 - [173] - Quote CFC weaponized boredom, so CCP made the mechanics boredom based. Now the CFC are complaining that their enemies are using boredom. Is bootiful. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Speig Yotosala SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 0	Posted - 2016.03.21 06:40:22 - [174] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks To the OP, Gloom, I consider you a friend. We shared some time in a previous corp, and I remember you as being a good person, someone I respect. It is unfortunate that you aren't having fun reacting to the timers. The fight a few nights ago where we succeeded in destroying the I-hub was inceredibly fun for us. The newbro in the worm with T1 drones couldn't break my entosising caracal, and I couldn't catch him with a scram, but he did drive me off the node. I thought it was awesome of him to try anyway, and he did stop me from completing the node timer. It was a blast. But your problem isn't with the developers at CCP and the sov timers. You are caught up in an unfortunate series of events where your leadership pissed off someone with lots of isk. Blood started spilling into the waters of Fade, and this attracted the sharks. Now the sharks are circling. Your problem is that its too hard to fish with all the sharks swimming around. The solution is easy. Its time to move on to better fishing. As long as the bleeding continues, the sharks will keep circling. SMA has been bleeding for a few weeks now. Do you really want to spend your EVE time on a sinking ship in shark infested waters?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7420	Posted - 2016.03.21 08:32:10 - [175] - 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.
Kinis Deren StarHunt Mordus Angels 477	Posted - 2016.03.21 10:52:59 - [176] - Quote Serious question to OP: Why don't you exercise some free will and decline to join the defence fleet for a system you don't live in & possibly have never visited? Just say no and do what you enjoy doing. The answer to your problem is in your hands & not CCP's.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders 4333	Posted - 2016.03.21 11:04:19 - [177] - Quote 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? Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7421	Posted - 2016.03.21 11:16:58 - [178] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 25	Posted - 2016.03.21 19:13:46 - [179] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. you keep saying an rmter and it keeps getting thrown around but no one offers prof that this is the case. The spin towards this even being a war at this point is also something that doesnGÇÖt aid the conversation on sov mechanics in general. 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. We win some we lose some but itGÇÖs just a fight. Nothing any more meaningful then that to me. Your no different than fighting snuff in low sec or anyone else. 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? If both sides owe the other nothing then any use of the mechanics available to them is encouraged and smart to do. The great thing about eve and the worst thing about eve is the meta game. Ever mechanic has to balance both the in game numbers and the meta game. DonGÇÖt get me wrong any group that says they donGÇÖt play the meta game knowingly or unknowingly is delusional at best. 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 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. As for fighting back against entosis ships it takes a warmup cycle and then another cycle to entosis so lets say 10 minutes worst case an hour best cases. If you have dudes in those systems during the window they can hunt down and destroy the entsoiserGÇÖs. Kitting is always going to be a part of the game and something that is smart for small groups to do. Siegefleet is also something that fits into this category. Weponized boredom and fighting smart is something they canGÇÖt remove form the game. Unless they make wow style battlefields if fighting gains, you nothing why commit for either side. I do think your occupancy sov idea has some merit and whoever can do x,y,and z while having the strength to keep people from docking there owns it. Make sov almost like npc null and you have to defend your stations and use your space. It gives everyone the ability to attack and everyone the ability to live in their space.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2708	Posted - 2016.03.21 19:32:24 - [180] - Quote Aiwha wrote: CFC weaponized boredom, so CCP made the mechanics boredom based. Now the CFC are complaining that their enemies are using boredom. Is bootiful. The real stupid part is that the game goal steered many player toward this. No limit on engagement number leads to blobbing. Loss being meaningful leads to blueballing if you don't think you will win. Some of the task required to maintain an empire being underwhelming on the fun factor leads to burnout being an effective strategy. Combine all of that together and you somehow gets the most effective strategy to "win" at this game. Entossing nodes is just a replacement for repping/grinding structures at the end of a timer we had before. Who really loved repping structures before? Probably the ones who currently don't mind defensive entosis fleet because it's the same thing at the end of the day. You activate a module on a single target with auto-repeat until it's marker is full. You do this with a fleet covering you and the other side can, at their leisure, decide if they engage or just let the other side do the boring work. You can also repeat this cycle over and over again pretty much forcing the other side into boring work a nearly infinite time. At the end of the day, we changed system to accomplish the exact same thing. We are still shooting/repping "flags".

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 529	Posted - 2016.03.21 19:41:53 - [181] - Quote Show me on the doll where Fozzie touched your afk ratting empire but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.21 21:57:43 - [182] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 26	Posted - 2016.03.21 23:27:47 - [183] - Quote Lucas i treid to qute the qute but the fourms wouldnt let me so i split them off for each point. This conversation is a blast and i'm glad we can have a good discussion on mechanics and gameplay. 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. [ 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. 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. without having a palce to stage from no one would attack anyone becuse your risk to reward ratio is way out of perportion. 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.
Shuckstar Taking Inc 354	Posted - 2016.03.22 00:46:54 - [184] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Yeah I feel like calling it guerrilla tactics lends it more credibility than it deserves. Sounds like what I used to play as a kid, Knock door run CCP Greyscale wrote:"OK, I've read every post up to page 200, and we're getting to a point in this thread where there's not a lot of new concerns or suggestions being brought up. There will be future threads (and future blogs) as we tune details, but for now I want to thank you for all of your constructive input, and wish you a good weekend :)"
CBBOMBERMAN Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 17	Posted - 2016.03.22 07:49:45 - [185] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:00:04 - [186] - 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 - [187] - 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.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2774	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:28:51 - [188] - Quote 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 388	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:34:59 - [189] - 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. how dare you question their right?! they are the SMA, they are entitled!!! Just Add Water
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:40:45 - [190] - 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.

Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2774	Posted - 2016.03.22 08:48:38 - [191] - Quote 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 09:04:31 - [192] - 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.
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 389	Posted - 2016.03.22 09:27:58 - [193] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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... 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? Just Add Water
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2774	Posted - 2016.03.22 09:44:46 - [194] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 26	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:01:42 - [195] - Quote part of the problem may be the entosis module seemed to be glitched. http://imgur.com/a/sAHAy Goonswarm was kind enough to show us that if you start the cycle then just burn as long as your in range by the end of the cycle it still works. I never knew that was a thing before hopefuly ccp can clarify id this is intended or not. If it is it's definitely something that needs to be fixed. either way it wa sa blast guys and most of the fights seems to be a blast. I thionk it was 400 on 400 today at one point. If this is an intended way to use the enotisi mechanic then it could cause some problems. Start cycle burn away close in to finish cycle and die. this may need to be ballanced and next month we should have citdels and the cap changes to play with who knows what that will do. What a time to be alive.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:32:22 - [196] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 26	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:41:49 - [197] - Quote Any mechanic can be used to create an advantage. to be honest if i cared about space and could feild the numbers the imperium could it would be amazing. your small gang and solo guys hunting down entosis boats. forming fleets to kill t3d's and bigger fleets. a constant state of content brought to me without having to lift a finger. I would be happy. you guys have it all right now for fleets small gang options. big fights, and even cap and supper caps getting droped. Would you guys even fight like this without someone entosising something or creating a situation where fighting was a desired outcome for you? I am honestly curious i know nothing about the internal poltics and ideasl about well any group really but for someone who loves pvp this is amazing. even losing a few intiys tonight to try and snipe an entosis ship was a blast and a learning experience.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:44:26 - [198] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: Any mechanic can be used to create an advantage. to be honest if i cared about space and could feild the numbers the imperium could it would be amazing. your small gang and solo guys hunting down entosis boats. forming fleets to kill t3d's and bigger fleets. a constant state of content brought to me without having to lift a finger. I would be happy. you guys have it all right now for fleets small gang options. big fights, and even cap and supper caps getting droped. Would you guys even fight like this without someone entosising something or creating a situation where fighting was a desired outcome for you? I am honestly curious i know nothing about the internal poltics and ideasl about well any group really but for someone who loves pvp this is amazing. even losing a few intiys tonight to try and snipe an entosis ship was a blast and a learning experience. I agree with you, this is great. But no one will believe that coming from me. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7426	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:44:48 - [199] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 26	Posted - 2016.03.22 10:48:50 - [200] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: Any mechanic can be used to create an advantage. to be honest if i cared about space and could feild the numbers the imperium could it would be amazing. your small gang and solo guys hunting down entosis boats. forming fleets to kill t3d's and bigger fleets. a constant state of content brought to me without having to lift a finger. I would be happy. you guys have it all right now for fleets small gang options. big fights, and even cap and supper caps getting droped. Would you guys even fight like this without someone entosising something or creating a situation where fighting was a desired outcome for you? I am honestly curious i know nothing about the internal poltics and ideasl about well any group really but for someone who loves pvp this is amazing. even losing a few intiys tonight to try and snipe an entosis ship was a blast and a learning experience. I agree with you, this is great. But no one will believe that coming from me. I belive you this is amazingly fun for me and i don;t have close to the numbers you guys do to work with. there's kill to be had everywhere and a fight just around the next corner. the citdels coming up next and cap changes are going to make things even more intersting and entertaining,

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:48:01 - [201] - Quote Yeah as long as you can't potentially disable a citadel with an entosis link, that **** is ridiculous Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Hawk Aulmais EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2	Posted - 2016.03.22 16:07:17 - [202] - Quote I love how a lot of the "you need less space" is coming from ppl who's alliances have none. Ageis is heavily skewed toward the attackers. There is no commitment to taking the sov on their part. Exodus is a prime example. They come in we kill or chase them off they come back or go to pure blind to hit goon stuff. They do this every day with 5-7 in fleet. Sov shouldn't be a tool for small gang pvp. Less than 10 pilots have more power than a full fleet in dominion. Or PH with their entosis bombs. 20-30 mallers going out and hitting that many structures at once. All examples of a skewed system. The attackers can come back and harass the defenders by killing entosis ships that can't be effectively defended if in separate systems or just blueball and watch the defenders run around playing capture the flag. If the attackers are making a true effort to take sov and not just remove the current residents infastructure there needs to be a mechanic in play for this for a balanced sov system where it can be defended with out troll tactics. Needs to be harder to ref, reintroduce SBUS (with much less anchoring time), limit entosis links to battle cruiser and larger hulls, attackers must have a certain number of online poses or citadels, a certain number of hours it can be in ref per week like citadels will be(only the number will be dependent on the adm), something to balance it.
Genoir Relentless Terrorism Separatists 14	Posted - 2016.03.22 16:30:03 - [203] - Quote 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7427	Posted - 2016.03.22 16:48:00 - [204] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 16:55:34 - [205] - Quote That's really the only solution. Entosis people for no reason to spread the grief around. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.22 21:43:42 - [206] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: That's really the only solution. Entosis people for no reason to spread the grief around. The biggest issue i see for you guys to do that is besides provi who do you hit. The Russians who are your allies acording to the Mattani? The groups who don't care about sov to begin with so won't care if they lose it. Right now you guts seem to be the only game in town so to speak Granted i don't know or care about most of the big sov groups or any of them for that matter. Defending sov can only be done if you care about that sov. thats why NPC null sec and low sec are so powerful I don't have to care about sov and can still get fights and force people to fight. I think the sad situation right now is only imperium, Russians, and provie actual care about there sov everyone else is jsut a meh whatever about it. to be fair it's been that way since a little after phebe.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 21:59:35 - [207] - Quote Doesn't matter who it is, there doesn't need to be a narrative attached. Just anonymous entosis harassment. PS did you just say we're the only show in town? Thanks fam Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:01:01 - [208] - Quote Before entosis lasers we had AFK Vexors that we used to grind structure HP while we slept. But that took four hours or so. Entosis links really are stupid. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:14:54 - [209] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Doesn't matter who it is, there doesn't need to be a narrative attached. Just anonymous entosis harassment. PS did you just say we're the only show in town? Thanks fam Who else owns anything besdies russians, provie and you guys? theres fights to be had everwhere but not these kind of fights right now. entosis everything if you want it's great for getting fights and if it's as broken as some of you guys say it is then it shouldn't be to hard to show how broken it is on a massive scale.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:27:54 - [210] - Quote Wait what Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:45:52 - [211] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Wait what People have said that the entosis mechanic is broken. if it really is you guys can show everyone how broken it is on a massive sacle as we were talking about eariler. I personally like it but would probably like any mechanic. As for people owning sov. It seems to be the russian block, The imperium and provie for people who care about there sov and own it. Everyone else dosn't seem to care about it. I don;t know if that is a fact i just shoot stuff but thats my perception on it.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:47:45 - [212] - Quote You had me worried with your question of who else owns sov. Plenty of people. I wouldn't necessarily do it on a Goonwaffe main, and as long as I pick someone I've never heard of, I think I can avoid an intergalactic incident. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:53:28 - [213] - Quote You're not one of those blue donut types, are you? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.22 23:05:34 - [214] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: You're not one of those blue donut types, are you? not really i don't care who i fight or where. I just truly love watching the carnage. Blue donut unblue donut it really makes no diffrance to me or my style of gameplay. I'm just in it for the destruction and chaos fighting brings. i wont shoot blues but if someone's not blue i'll shoot whoever. and if everyone is blue and against me it just means i have more targets.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.22 23:33:18 - [215] - Quote I gotcha. And I don't rat, all I want to do is fleet up. What do you do for ISK? The only positive ISK transaction I have in the game is SRP. So my stake in all of this is if line member income stops, my fun stops. I think the gameplay we want is very similar. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.23 00:36:51 - [216] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I gotcha. And I don't rat, all I want to do is fleet up. What do you do for ISK? The only positive ISK transaction I have in the game is SRP. So my stake in all of this is if line member income stops, my fun stops. I think the gameplay we want is very similar. market trading is great. it takes very little time and you can gain massive income after you learn what your doing and the best part is since you don't undock no risk unless you make a mistake. citdels might change that but for right now passive income sources are sp farming. reaction farming never done this, and market trading. there might be others but there the ones i know of. you'll never get rich but you can pvp. it sounds like we both enjoy doing the same thing and to be honest i'm sure people in every group enjoy what we do. this is waht amkes eve amazing is the fact that everyone can set there own end game.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.23 01:13:25 - [217] - Quote I can't stand market clicking and upkeep. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1704	Posted - 2016.03.23 03:12:45 - [218] - Quote So CFC spends a year or so meta gaming with "occpancy sov" and "apex force" to force their enemies completely out of ~true sov holding~. Now the complaint is "our enemies have no true interest in holding sov and only harass us with throwaway subcaps". Hoisted by your own petard, well and truly.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.23 04:21:45 - [219] - Quote Yeah that's the spin, my narrative-hungry friend. Let's not forget that small part about the contract to attack Imperium sov. So whether it's a rumored RMT banker on a love-hate trip or Mittens himself behind the ISK, it's good practice. Smug it up, though, no point in having a levelheaded discussion about a game mechanic now. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1006	Posted - 2016.03.23 04:25:11 - [220] - Quote Practice implies you get better at thing. You're starting to lose timers, so you might want to rethink how you're "practicing". Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 424	Posted - 2016.03.23 04:25:56 - [221] - Quote Get rid of sovereignty as a formal game mechanic. In other words, delete TCUs from the game. There would be of course many many repercussions of such a move - but it's the ultimate form of Occupancy SOV.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.23 07:02:23 - [222] - Quote Getting rid of the sov map would create a truly occupy sov situation. if you have the strength then you own it if not then rip. I don;t think it's the right answer though planting a flag on the map is important so some people in this game. mabey just have a tcu no sov upgrades and all that just you can put your flag here now protect it kind of deal.
Hello Meza Applied Anarchy ChaosTheory. 4	Posted - 2016.03.23 07:11:15 - [223] - Quote Reiisha wrote: I was thinking, why not remove the sovereignty mechanic outright? I feel too many mechanics are necessary just to decide the color of the map. This. You can still have colour on the map based on who "lives" and "works" where and how much. There is still no reason other than colour on a map to actually have sov.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33482	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:49:50 - [224] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Practice implies you get better at thing. You're starting to lose timers, so you might want to rethink how you're "practicing". If you mean initial timers, 20 minutes is incredibly short. It's easier to let those go and respond to the finals which are on a schedule, than scramble to get people there in the last few minutes of an initial hack. The initials are gimmes. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2717	Posted - 2016.03.23 13:05:26 - [225] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Get rid of sovereignty as a formal game mechanic. In other words, delete TCUs from the game. There would be of course many many repercussions of such a move - but it's the ultimate form of Occupancy SOV. Leave the TCU there but just make it and the I-HUB ownership flip according to what happens in a system. PvP kills, PvE, mining, everything. THen it really become an occupancy based SOV system instead of this abortion where occupancy only really give you a bonus for the flag capping real game.
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1107	Posted - 2016.03.23 14:09:45 - [226] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Leave the TCU there but just make it and the I-HUB ownership flip according to what happens in a system. PvP kills, PvE, mining, everything. THen it really become an occupancy based SOV system instead of this abortion where occupancy only really give you a bonus for the flag capping real game. There is a downside to IHUB flipping mech the way I see it - it doesn't incentivise people to blow the thing up except in situation when people who invade a system aren't looking forward to settling there. I'm not sure if hardware not going boom more often is within EVE philosophy and/or economical model. On a side note, when CCP declared sov changes, I was actually expecting this kind of thing instead of what we have ended up with. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2718	Posted - 2016.03.25 00:10:16 - [227] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Leave the TCU there but just make it and the I-HUB ownership flip according to what happens in a system. PvP kills, PvE, mining, everything. THen it really become an occupancy based SOV system instead of this abortion where occupancy only really give you a bonus for the flag capping real game. There is a downside to IHUB flipping mech the way I see it - it doesn't incentivise people to blow the thing up except in situation when people who invade a system aren't looking forward to settling there. I'm not sure if hardware not going boom more often is within EVE philosophy and/or economical model. On a side note, when CCP declared sov changes, I was actually expecting this kind of thing instead of what we have ended up with. If you have to do something meaningful in that system to work toward the ownership of it, stuff will end up going boom at some point unless the space is not worth the effort. If the space isn't worth the effort, then you have a different problem on your hands to deal with.
Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 833	Posted - 2016.03.25 10:30:50 - [228] - Quote Not sure but if someone decided to hold the territory and consider himself as a land lord later on this would automatically means that someone else would think of to take that territory as well. So here we have this conflict of interests which lead both sides to have a deal or fight. Having limited period of time during which one the territory vulnarable for capture is a complete nonsence. Same thing about that a small gang of rookie ships mounted with single module could 'destabilize' the whole system by opening doors for invaders. This type of sov is a cancer. The disease which tend people to collaborate under 'blue doughnut' or let the land go into someone else hands.
CBBOMBERMAN Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 18	Posted - 2016.03.25 16:12:33 - [229] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: Not sure but if someone decided to hold the territory and consider himself as a land lord later on this would automatically means that someone else would think of to take that territory as well. So here we have this conflict of interests which lead both sides to have a deal or fight. Having limited period of time during which one the territory vulnarable for capture is a complete nonsence. Same thing about that a small gang of rookie ships mounted with single module could 'destabilize' the whole system by opening doors for invaders. This type of sov is a cancer. The disease which tend people to collaborate under 'blue doughnut' or let the land go into someone else hands. blue donut existed for years way before new sov. New sov is not related at all to the blue donut. Infact the new sov has changed space completely. All you have to do is open veritas sov and see the big difference between north and south. The blue donut only really exist in the north now..
Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 833	Posted - 2016.03.25 22:03:21 - [230] - Quote CBBOMBERMAN wrote: Tiddle Jr wrote: Not sure but if someone decided to hold the territory and consider himself as a land lord later on this would automatically means that someone else would think of to take that territory as well. So here we have this conflict of interests which lead both sides to have a deal or fight. Having limited period of time during which one the territory vulnarable for capture is a complete nonsence. Same thing about that a small gang of rookie ships mounted with single module could 'destabilize' the whole system by opening doors for invaders. This type of sov is a cancer. The disease which tend people to collaborate under 'blue doughnut' or let the land go into someone else hands. blue donut existed for years way before new sov. New sov is not related at all to the blue donut. Infact the new sov has changed space completely. All you have to do is open veritas sov and see the big difference between north and south. The blue donut only really exist in the north now..

Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 833	Posted - 2016.03.25 22:05:07 - [231] - Quote CBBOMBERMAN wrote: Tiddle Jr wrote: Not sure but if someone decided to hold the territory and consider himself as a land lord later on this would automatically means that someone else would think of to take that territory as well. So here we have this conflict of interests which lead both sides to have a deal or fight. Having limited period of time during which one the territory vulnarable for capture is a complete nonsence. Same thing about that a small gang of rookie ships mounted with single module could 'destabilize' the whole system by opening doors for invaders. This type of sov is a cancer. The disease which tend people to collaborate under 'blue doughnut' or let the land go into someone else hands. blue donut existed for years way before new sov. New sov is not related at all to the blue donut. Infact the new sov has changed space completely. All you have to do is open veritas sov and see the big difference between north and south. The blue donut only really exist in the north now.. Its just confirms that CCP doesn't know how to manage null sec ownreship properly. And goons the only ones who manage to succesfully control huge territory under imperium's vings. And XiX. Brothers of Tangra and Northen Associates spaces been left for good by their landlords. And these landlords are attacking goons now only for fun or either content but not to hold their sov. Cause both pl/nc said after aegis that they don't interested in sov.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.26 02:03:40 - [232] - Quote there have been a ton of good fights recently and a few things have highlighted the strength of fozie sov. Small groups working away from the main fleets. Fights going down almost nightly including large engagements. neither side commiting to fights they will obviously lose. All in all so far the system seems to work. i don;t know how it works on a large scale yet but on a small scale it seems to work quite well. I am really interested in seeing what citdels brinig to the mix. also Lucas Kell and Rain6637 it's been a ton of fun chatting and debating with you. I hope we can have more conversations about game mechanics and keep the discussion going.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33483	Posted - 2016.03.26 03:08:42 - [233] - Quote My mind turns to you (PL) when it comes to citadels. Right now yeah you have sov but will the docking rights to supers entice PL to commit to a citadel and fill it with stuff? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2016.03.26 04:00:10 - [234] - Quote i'm not anyone in PL but i don't think it would to be honest. It's hard to be nomadic when you have to defend assets all over. If you could cyno over the entire map again potentially but witht he current way we move in eve it would take away our nomadic lifestyle. Like i said i'm no one and could be 100 percent wrong.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33483	Posted - 2016.03.26 06:58:20 - [235] - Quote I was on a fleet multiboxing entosis links tonight. I need some time to compose myself. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 04:19:48 - [236] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I was on a fleet multiboxing entosis links tonight. I need some time to compose myself. Dear CCP, You know how Thera failed to become the "Mos Eisley of EVE" without Concord because it's way too dangerous to appeal to industrialists? In the same way, Entosis fails to appeal to players who aren't willing to make EVE a full-time job. By participating in Entosis gameplay I feel as though I'm betraying the playerbase with "but activity has increased." It feels like you're trying to make social gameplay harder to maintain in spite of you. Your notions of what gameplay should be are out of touch and we are literally using the act of playing as punishment against each other. Open up Jove space held by CCP alliance for a week and see what it's like to maintain Entosis sov. Even if you fail, I would give you credit for having experienced this epically disjointed gameplay. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 04:27:34 - [237] - Quote Do it on Sisi and give Polaris frigates a 400% bonus to entosis minute effectiveness, idgaf. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 833	Posted - 2016.03.27 04:33:23 - [238] - Quote It appeared that Entosis module one of the most powerfull tools in Eve which makes people think that they got almost thumb of god in their hands or makes it feel Eve your second home full of assets which you have to protect or take care of which in the end makes it full time asssignment.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 04:43:12 - [239] - Quote Considering an AFK Vexor can entosis a structure in 20 minutes, by hypothetical DPS that means a structure now has 300 DPS x 60seconds x 20 minutes = 360,000 EHP Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 04:44:35 - [240] - Quote Better do it AFK though or else you'll lose your damn mind, potentially a fleet at a time. I can't imagine a better way to dare your playerbase to stage a mass exodus but I'm sure you'll surprise me. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Sister MaryElephant Stellar Conundrum 3	Posted - 2016.03.27 05:22:41 - [241] - Quote Mmmmmm Goon tears. Took ten years but the JV1V syndrome bites you in the ass when ya actually have to fight. good luck...have fun......
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 08:49:59 - [242] - Quote Sure call it goon tears. Just as long as you link this page on Reddit so devs will see it. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sister MaryElephant Stellar Conundrum 3	Posted - 2016.03.27 12:01:47 - [243] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Sure call it goon tears. Just as long as you link this page on Reddit so devs will see it. Sweet sweet irony. Bring back Darius....at least he knows the game and how to lead.....and might fight rather than just make excuses. And lolreddit....what a horrible reading experience.
Ria Nieyli 42477	Posted - 2016.03.27 12:16:58 - [244] - Quote The easiest solution would be to introduce the faction warfare system ownership system to null. One difference, make all the plexes that spawn ungated. Obviously, make it so people can light cynos and warp in/out as well. That way people will get lots of things to fight over if they want to take sov in a system and blueballing won't really do much to stop them. It's the perfect system. Vote Cytoplasm for CSM 11!
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 12:29:14 - [245] - Quote Sister MaryElephant wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Sure call it goon tears. Just as long as you link this page on Reddit so devs will see it. Sweet sweet irony. Bring back Darius....at least he knows the game and how to lead.....and might fight rather than just make excuses. And lolreddit....what a horrible reading experience. tbh you're not making EVE-O any better. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 12:30:07 - [246] - Quote And Darius seemed happy when he told me he gave away his characters and won EVE. I wouldn't wish it on him. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 538	Posted - 2016.03.27 14:47:23 - [247] - Quote Keep up the good fight Rain, I'm sure CCP will bail you out soon. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.27 15:06:38 - [248] - Quote lol. What disturbs me is the possibility that CCP dev success is measured in gate jump metrics. Like, a flat increase in gate jumps was the ultimate goal of entosis sov, and that is why sov gameplay sends us all over a constellation to chase down nodes. "But activity is up!" I want to point out we're still having massive fleet engagements over things like POSes, holdovers from pre-entosis gameplay with a considerable HP well. We used to have these same massive engagements over TCUs and IHubs. But that gameplay is avoided now. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Conrad Makbure Trident Expedition 95	Posted - 2016.03.28 03:29:31 - [249] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: ........... I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM. The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment. I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space. The minutes should be decaying minutes. If the attacker walks away from the campaign, the minutes should fall off back to zero. I like where you are going with this.
Sister MaryElephant Stellar Conundrum 3	Posted - 2016.03.28 04:08:33 - [250] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Blah blah spin Some of us have been around a long time. We remember the OOG ts crashing. We remember the deliberate node crashing ("ooo haha dump all them shuttles"). We remember the Goon spew of "we are here to ruin your game". Just BOHICA and enjoy it without whining for changes.

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.28 04:17:06 - [251] - Quote Sister MaryElephant wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Blah blah spin Some of us have been around a long time. We remember the OOG ts crashing. We remember the deliberate node crashing ("ooo haha dump all them shuttles"). We remember the Goon spew of "we are here to ruin your game". Just BOHICA and enjoy it without whining for changes. literally worse than reddit Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.28 04:17:51 - [252] - Quote If you've been around so long how come I don't know who the you are Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33484	Posted - 2016.03.28 04:21:32 - [253] - Quote Conrad Makbure wrote: Rain6637 wrote: ........... I think capture should look like a pool of 500 or 1000 entosis minutes, with a cap on simultaneous entosis modules based on ADM. The logic behind it is to swap capitals needed in the past with subcapitals, each with an entosis link. This breaks up the capital requirement of HP grinds, and also solves the small gang harassment. I am posting this as one of Asher's children who enjoyed 50-man Ishtar HP grinds in Querious and other parts of Sov space. The minutes should be decaying minutes. If the attacker walks away from the campaign, the minutes should fall off back to zero. I like where you are going with this. I agree, and instead of stront, entosis links should run on successful hacking minigames per cycle and drain all your cap. Also CAPTCHA authentication because you're trying to .... capture a node it makes complete sense CCPLease Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sister MaryElephant Stellar Conundrum 3	Posted - 2016.03.28 07:42:23 - [254] - Quote 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.
Reiisha Repracor Industries 995	Posted - 2016.03.28 11:16:14 - [255] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks Better idea: Remove all sov together. There are way, way too many mechanics in the game that are there just to determine the color of the map. 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. I don't like Goons, but Rain is usually quite astute. Just putting that out there. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 7372	Posted - 2016.03.28 11:50:58 - [256] - Quote Reiisha wrote: Better idea: Remove all sov together. There are way, way too many mechanics in the game that are there just to determine the color of the map. You mean just a presence in the system would indicate who owns it? Outrageous! We could pretend they are ours then. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1111	Posted - 2016.03.28 11:51:15 - [257] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: literally worse than reddit Glad you've finally figured that. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7435	Posted - 2016.03.28 11:54:54 - [258] - 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.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 117	Posted - 2016.03.28 12:00:36 - [259] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Cry moar Lucas. It's what you do best. Boorish, but expected. Dishonest and boorish. Hallmarks of your posts.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7435	Posted - 2016.03.28 12:08:01 - [260] - 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.

Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1111	Posted - 2016.03.28 12:18:14 - [261] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Cry moar Lucas. It's what you do best. Boorish, but expected. Dishonest and boorish. Hallmarks of your posts. To be honest, he is not exactly wrong. Things that are tied to entosis currently do little beyond paining the map. Fights happen over assets that are more valuable in terms of practical usefulness. This could not be said about old pre-entosis sov structures, by the way. Although when it comes to reasons behind current events in the North, I'd give more credit to jump changes. It gives people more reason to get involved with static warzone, prevents staggering response to every attack from defender's main forces and makes fighting without everyone cooperating to fight as a single fleet every time more viable. But I may be underestimating other reasons. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Reiisha Repracor Industries 997	Posted - 2016.03.28 17:38:29 - [262] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: Reiisha wrote: Better idea: Remove all sov together. There are way, way too many mechanics in the game that are there just to determine the color of the map. You mean just a presence in the system would indicate who owns it? Outrageous! We could pretend they are ours then. I'm not really joking around. The current sov system seems to be all about determining who is the owner of the system, and nothing else. The owner of the system can then 'do stuff' with the structures inside it. My suggestion would be to completely disconnect that last part from the ownership. Leave the mapmaking up to the community, and let anyone who wants to do so plop down structures and upgrade them in any system they want (provided they get the chance to do so). That way the PvP will go back to being based around the actual stations and resources of a system rather than arbitrary control structures. You'd have to adjust a few things to prevent certain cop-out tactics, but it would be a good start - Much better than the completely ridiculous system we have now which basically entirely sidesteps the problem it tries to solve in the first place. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Akirei Scytale Okami Syndicate 3640	Posted - 2016.03.28 17:41:20 - [263] - 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. I know who Rain is. Who the **** are you though?
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33485	Posted - 2016.03.29 04:11:28 - [264] - Quote This thread is about to see some literal goon tears if the love keeps up. I multiboxed war fleets for 12 hours today, lol. How are you guys? From the sound of it, Dear Leader's plan is to maintain this Entosis system to our advantage. Good thing my roots are PVE lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Crosi Wesdo War and Order 1822	Posted - 2016.03.29 04:16:30 - [265] - Quote 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?
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 28	Posted - 2016.03.29 06:45:17 - [266] - Quote The fight today and the last few fights have been amazing. If this is old mechanics permoting fights or new mechanics who cares. massive fights, tidi, and carnage on a massive scale. This is the **** that makes eve what it is to me. I really hope this content keeps going and that this war, skirmish, wehatever it is never ends or just goes form one fight to the next.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 07:28:53 - [267] - 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.
Sister MaryElephant Stellar Conundrum 4	Posted - 2016.03.29 07:37:15 - [268] - Quote Akirei Scytale wrote: 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. I know who Rain is. Who the **** are you though? Someone who doesn't care a fig for WHO you think you are..... But totally enjoying the irony. My sippy cup of tears brims over
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 09:06:10 - [269] - 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.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2782	Posted - 2016.03.29 09:28:18 - [270] - Quote 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. :) Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 10:14:13 - [271] - 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.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2783	Posted - 2016.03.29 11:06:10 - [272] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7439	Posted - 2016.03.29 11:14:40 - [273] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33485	Posted - 2016.03.29 11:33:51 - [274] - Quote Zappity please lay off the ph koolaid. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33485	Posted - 2016.03.29 11:41:09 - [275] - Quote Quote: Someone who doesn't care a fig for WHO you think you are..... But totally enjoying the irony. My sippy cup of tears brims over So far you've only been difficult. I'm divorced and know what it feels like when someone has made up their mind to be that way. I'm pretty sure the only way to make you agreeable is to concede that I'm a completely dejected goon and otherwise victimize myself. But I'm not and I won't, and you hate it. The reason I care who you are (and I still don't know) is that I might gain some insight as to what is motivating your hateboner. If there is a discussion to be had with you, I'm still open to the possibility. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1008	Posted - 2016.03.29 12:15:58 - [276] - Quote Don't worry zap, they're just bitter that the biggest contributor to their war effort was welcomed back into civilized space with open arms. The new sov system has actually been working surprisingly well in splitting up fleets and spreading conflicts across multiple grids and systems, while still occasionally focusing everything into massive OHGODWHY tidi furballs. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 12:29:07 - [277] - Quote You wish. Coalition space is no longer a Y and I'm pretty sure we'll get closer to a 1:1 ratio of alliance per region. I'll admit that's probably the more responsible way to sov, and entosis might have some part in that. It's only due to the pressure of this war, though. Groups will return to equilibrium and end up occupying the space they have the organization, management, motivation, infrastructure, and manpower for... ...in relation to each other. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 12:31:43 - [278] - Quote Politics is far too impersonal for me to be bitter. I am thoroughly amused by the turn of events. It's better than Oprah. If you think that's who you're talking to, someone bitter that is, we will never see eye to eye. But I get that you want it to be true. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7440	Posted - 2016.03.29 12:38:13 - [279] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 12:51:46 - [280] - Quote lol. The propaganda war is spilling over. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Sol epoch Addicted To Chaos Archetype. 283	Posted - 2016.03.29 13:22:51 - [281] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: lol. The propaganda war is spilling over. More like Spin and fire control!
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1009	Posted - 2016.03.29 13:29:16 - [282] - Quote Groups will certainly stabilize again, the question is, how many are going to be loyal to her martini when it happens? CFC members have to be asking themselves what THEY get out of this "loyalty" thing. Apparently its not having your space defended. Or your titans protected. I guess you get to read Mittani's ego pings right away rather than waiting for somebody to post them to reddit, but is that really worth expending your time and assets protecting his assets? Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 13:30:45 - [283] - Quote Do you call us the CFC because you still have the last war's axe to grind? You have it backwards, btw. I was paid 900 Million ISK after losing two Oneiroses yesterday. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7442	Posted - 2016.03.29 13:44:55 - [284] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 28	Posted - 2016.03.29 14:37:32 - [285] - Quote Honestly beside the op i havn;t seen any tears in here just discussion. I hope we can keep having a dialog about the mecahnics becuse at the end of the day were all just people playing a game and sharing a hobby we enjoy.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 14:53:08 - [286] - Quote After that entosis multibox op, I also decided to pick a system and live in it to rat for ADMs. Living in sov you own should come naturally for a lot of people but I don't rat, so it's a bit of a chore for me. I hate the entosis grind but I gave in and realized the best way to go forward was building up ADMs to prevent entosis whack-a-mole from happening so often. In the meantime, entosis node gameplay is completely detached and needs some UI improvements: The three-character node identifier is at the end of the name field when it should be at the beginning so you don't have to stretch overview twice as far. Coordinating node hacks by chat window is freaking impossible. There should be a constellation node dashboard for all to see, so that in order to command entosis gangs across a constellation, an FC doesn't need an alt per system. This dashboard should show the current node timer of all nodes per system, or by TCU / Ihub. There should be a projected completion percentage showing the progress that will result from currently running entosis hacks. We're constantly having to tally how many nodes are being hacked to stop short of hacking extra nodes. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 14:59:07 - [287] - Quote I don't understand why nodes have to spawn all over a constellation. It would be more conducive to the large single-grid battles everyone enjoys if it was just that structure (Ihub or TCU) that needed X number of entosis miinutes applied to it. If you require players travel all over a constellation, you can potentially have a standoffish node hacking race that actually isn't satisfying. Get rid of whack-a-mole. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 15:00:45 - [288] - Quote "who's doing the hacking? Primary is that guy." is actually a great addition to grid warfare. It used to be suicide triage repping a structure. With entosis everyone can get in on it who can fit the module. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1010	Posted - 2016.03.29 16:58:52 - [289] - Quote I thought the imperium thing died with the book. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 541	Posted - 2016.03.29 17:27:35 - [290] - Quote 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. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.29 19:21:16 - [291] - 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.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1708	Posted - 2016.03.29 20:58:22 - [292] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I don't understand why nodes have to spawn all over a constellation. It would be more conducive to the large single-grid battles everyone enjoys if it was just that structure (Ihub or TCU) that needed X number of entosis miinutes applied to it. If you require players travel all over a constellation, you can potentially have a standoffish node hacking race that actually isn't satisfying. Get rid of whack-a-mole. We used to have single grid fights but then someone lost 300 dreadnoughts in HED-GP before they even loaded grid, then claimed the game "forced them to do it since that's the thing that works best", then many cried and made a racket on the forums and threatened to unsub unless CCP fixed it so that the optimal strategy wasn't to jump 300 dreadnoughts into a single grid. So that's what CCP did.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 542	Posted - 2016.03.29 21:15:29 - [293] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: snip I just prefer typing three letters instead of eight... And imp isn't nearly malevolent enough to sum you up. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1708	Posted - 2016.03.29 21:19:44 - [294] - Quote 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!!
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 21:49:24 - [295] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Rain6637 wrote: I don't understand why nodes have to spawn all over a constellation. It would be more conducive to the large single-grid battles everyone enjoys if it was just that structure (Ihub or TCU) that needed X number of entosis miinutes applied to it. If you require players travel all over a constellation, you can potentially have a standoffish node hacking race that actually isn't satisfying. Get rid of whack-a-mole. Because someone lost 300 dreadnoughts in HED-GP before they even loaded grid by jumping them all in at once, then claimed the game "forced them to do it since that's the thing that works best", then many cried and made a racket on the forums and threatened to unsub unless CCP fixed it so that the optimal strategy wasn't to jump 1000 ships into a single grid. So that's what CCP did. I doubt it. When we ask for node reinforcement, apparently only one system (not the whole constellation) gets reinforced, like what happened yesterday with M-O and the neighboring systems. I had two clients open in J-GAMP and one was a minute ahead of the other. Also jump fatigue. They would have to assume we'd still cyno ourselves around a constellation despite fatigue to make such a big decision based on cynos. It's unlikely. I think it has more to do with wanting to force everyone through repeated chokepoints to make sure the fighting is down to the last person standing. It's a nice thought on paper and I agree with the idea, the problem is it makes gameplay worse and tedious and detached (people don't know wtf is going on). Players are very clear about wanting single-point confrontations and I think in this case they're right about knowing what they want. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 21:50:59 - [296] - Quote I will say CFC is the type of name that lowers expectations, which I like. I'm a low expectations kind of guy. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 21:52:02 - [297] - Quote Not everyone understands the psychological value of that, though. In contrast, Imperium is a blowhard name. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.29 22:00:54 - [298] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 22:19:31 - [299] - Quote The difference is the CFC is an enemy that can never change because it is in the past and unmoving. Unlesssss you want to rewrite history. Could that be the case? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1709	Posted - 2016.03.29 22:24:53 - [300] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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 ****. 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.

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.29 23:36:50 - [301] - Quote Some real world wisdom here, it's a mistake to fight the last war. You should call an enemy by their name to help keep your head in the game of fighting who they are right now. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.29 23:46:08 - [302] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.30 00:39:42 - [303] - Quote It's worth mentioning though, the defectors as of late are from the CFC era and share the CFC is Real mindset. Blawrf in particular openly disagreed with the Imperium changeover and is pretty much a hanger-on to the idea that the CFC still exists. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.30 00:40:31 - [304] - Quote The rest of them are so old I literally don't know who they are. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.30 01:03:15 - [305] - Quote I can think of something worse than wishing you could have your old enemy back, which is wishing you could have EVE as it was two expansions ago. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33487	Posted - 2016.03.30 01:04:10 - [306] - Quote soon to be three. M-m-m-m-m-m-m-multi Post post post Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2784	Posted - 2016.03.30 03:19:46 - [307] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Zappity please lay off the ph koolaid. Ooh, there's koolaid? Maybe it is on their forum. But I have avoided that so far because I am exposed to enough carcinogens at work. I'm finding this whole thing fascinating regardless of the outcome. I think it is pretty unlikely that goons will be turfed out of Deklein but the lesser alliances are another matter. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1711	Posted - 2016.03.30 03:33:22 - [308] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Mate, if you willingly ignore your own previous posts and move goalposts and string out trivial posts into overly long arguments because you must win at eve-o posting then you must be Lucas Kell. Oh wait, you are.
Arsine Mayhem Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 400	Posted - 2016.03.30 05:10:13 - [309] - Quote 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.
Arsine Mayhem Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 400	Posted - 2016.03.30 05:12:03 - [310] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You're just tearing up all through the thread aren't you. We LOVE goon tears, and tears from their meat shields also. Stupid meat shields.

Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 29	Posted - 2016.03.30 06:24:12 - [311] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I can think of something worse than wishing you could have your old enemy back, which is wishing you could have EVE as it was two expansions ago. I actual don;t want the old expansions back. every expansion brings something new and it's all about adaptation. At the end of the day an eve war is about making a player not have fun with the group there flying with anymore. I personally love tidi and entosis mechanics. I love the idea of a good old fashioned trench warfare in a space game. The cap and citdel changes have me excited to see what new meta's will spring up and what everyone will have to adapt to.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.30 06:44:34 - [312] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.30 07:47:35 - [313] - Quote Xeno I don't want to say anything disheartening but yeah. As for anyone else with a hateboner problem that can never be fixed, yawn. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sister MaryElephant Stellar Conundrum 5	Posted - 2016.03.30 07:55:19 - [314] - 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. :) What have you got against sippy cups? And having followed Zappity's adventures for quite some time I am THRILLED to be in the same thread In the meantime....lets return to "Irony Unlimited" featuring the voice of Goon begging CCP to change the rules to compensate for 40k alliance having 300 in fleet Or bring Darius back. Goon may go down in flames but Darius would make it amusing in an eloquent poop-n-fartz joke sort of way!
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.30 07:56:52 - [315] - Quote yawn Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 29	Posted - 2016.03.30 10:03:30 - [316] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Xeno I don't want to say anything disheartening but yeah. As for anyone else with a hateboner problem that can never be fixed, yawn. It's not dishertining for me If i'm in that means the bad guys are in and lets face it everyone ont he otherside is the bad guy even if you don;t dislike them. its the nature of war. And i smile as i relise that everything i'm in there in and vice versa. As for entosis mechanics shooting an I hub is the same as entosising to me so no real diffrance. Just a diffrant way of pervoking the fight.,
Blawrf McTaggart Bat Country Pandemic Legion 1821	Posted - 2016.03.30 10:32:58 - [317] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: It's worth mentioning though, the defectors as of late are from the CFC era and share the CFC is Real mindset. Blawrf in particular openly disagreed with the Imperium changeover and is pretty much a hanger-on to the idea that the CFC still exists. Hey, just correcting you a tad here: I didn't openly disagree with the Imperium changeover until my big Reddit thing. I kept any concerns quiet and private - I also don't believe the CFC exists, I just use the term to differentiate between the coalition I served and what it turned into (Imperium).
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.30 12:13:29 - [318] - Quote Unless you're saying you didn't disagree with things until your Reddit AMA, the timing doesn't change anything. Now that I have both of you PLebes here, made you post. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.30 12:14:15 - [319] - Quote boop Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 542	Posted - 2016.03.30 12:15:31 - [320] - Quote I'm glad the eve player base has stepped in to help Goons with their request for fewer timers. Great community we have here. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.30 12:16:03 - [321] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Xeno I don't want to say anything disheartening but yeah. As for anyone else with a hateboner problem that can never be fixed, yawn. It's not dishertining for me If i'm in that means the bad guys are in and lets face it everyone ont he otherside is the bad guy even if you don;t dislike them. its the nature of war. And i smile as i relise that everything i'm in there in and vice versa. As for entosis mechanics shooting an I hub is the same as entosising to me so no real diffrance. Just a diffrant way of pervoking the fight., What I had on my mind was the messy / bloody changes coming to capital gameplay. I've been told that within GSF, if you lose a capital on official business, it gets replaced. As for you guys, from what I can tell the conensus regarding capital losses is "we don't take losses." Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.03.30 12:31:13 - [322] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Xeno I don't want to say anything disheartening but yeah. As for anyone else with a hateboner problem that can never be fixed, yawn. It's not dishertining for me If i'm in that means the bad guys are in and lets face it everyone ont he otherside is the bad guy even if you don;t dislike them. its the nature of war. And i smile as i relise that everything i'm in there in and vice versa. As for entosis mechanics shooting an I hub is the same as entosising to me so no real diffrance. Just a diffrant way of pervoking the fight., What I had on my mind was the messy / bloody changes coming to capital gameplay. I've been told that within GSF, if you lose a capital on official business, it gets replaced. As for you guys, from what I can tell the conensus regarding capital losses is "we don't take losses." Meh I've never needed srp and don;t see that changing. And as for not taking losses it was before my time but prety sure we lost a quite a few in b-r and anytime you field a ship theres a chance of lossing it either way im hopping we see trillions of isk destoryed and carange on a massive scale over the next few years. Eve get's boring without fights and people not willing to fights. Probably why i spent a vast majority of my time in low sec.
Arsine Mayhem Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 400	Posted - 2016.03.30 15:17:25 - [323] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? 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.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 133	Posted - 2016.03.30 15:37:44 - [324] - Quote 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.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2785	Posted - 2016.03.30 21:18:11 - [325] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I don't understand why nodes have to spawn all over a constellation. It would be more conducive to the large single-grid battles everyone enjoys if it was just that structure (Ihub or TCU) that needed X number of entosis miinutes applied to it. If you require players travel all over a constellation, you can potentially have a standoffish node hacking race that actually isn't satisfying. Get rid of whack-a-mole. 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.30 21:29:10 - [326] - Quote I think it could work. It just needs a more extensive UI to help fleet commanders know what's going on. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.03.30 21:57:09 - [327] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I think it could work. It just needs a more extensive UI to help fleet commanders know what's going on. An updated ui for fc's would be amazing
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.31 01:36:54 - [328] - Quote I mean, one that is visible to everyone. But is useful to whoever is coordinating sitting ducks and their cover. http://i.imgur.com/H3kUPI6.png Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7444	Posted - 2016.03.31 06:59:05 - [329] - 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 - [330] - 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.

Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1020	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:37:23 - [331] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I mean, one that is visible to everyone. But is useful to whoever is coordinating sitting ducks and their cover. http://i.imgur.com/H3kUPI6.png Get a second monitor. Or a third even. Three monitors, and you'll never go back. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:39:35 - [332] - Quote would you believe me if I told you it is still confusing when you have a character in each system of a constellation? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Hawk Aulmais EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:00:17 - [333] - Quote 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:25:37 - [334] - Quote 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. Geography plays a part in any war. if you cant saave them all then you can;'t save them all. thats only around 15 hacking atempts per day. and put that into a small window of time one to two fleets could cover that. with an allaince your size you should have a fair number of fc's so each fc take a day or half a day to run anti entosis fleets and you can cover a large area of that. so lets say 4 fc to run good covrage over the tz's times 7 days thats only 28 people stepping up to run a fleet a week. out of 3,000 people thats not unreisnable to have. as for 20 hackers attacking at once that's also a strategy that has been used with sbu's and old sov mechanics as well.
Mario Putzo 1567	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:36:12 - [335] - Quote 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1020	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:42:38 - [336] - Quote Nah, you've gotta pull up dotlan. Dotlan is love, dotlan is life. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.03.31 19:21:29 - [337] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1021	Posted - 2016.04.01 01:51:24 - [338] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You've abandoned more than half your space... Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 02:08:45 - [339] - Quote Lol you're being dense. Most of those timers have won themselves back according to Dotlan. It's no secret so I'm going to just plainly tell you that we've withdrawn from a lot of our space and based in Lowsec because one of the biggest problems right now is the Entosis burden. When everyone with a PVP alt who is not Imperium dogpiling our sov, we're holding what we can. just lol man. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 02:09:37 - [340] - Quote The systems are empty and you still don't want to entosis it. Why not, is it because Entosis sucks? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.01 02:55:19 - [341] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: The systems are empty and you still don't want to entosis it. Why not, is it because Entosis sucks? 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1024	Posted - 2016.04.01 03:40:04 - [342] - Quote According to The Mittani, when you're regulated to wulfpax out of lowsec, you've lost. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.01 06:47:42 - [343] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 10:04:41 - [344] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: Rain6637 wrote: The systems are empty and you still don't want to entosis it. Why not, is it because Entosis sucks? 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. You have been. As for why pay the sov bills it's to get people to entosis it all. Weaponized bullshit remember Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 10:06:48 - [345] - Quote It's like a hull tank of boredom. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.01 10:52:34 - [346] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Xeno Szenn wrote: Rain6637 wrote: The systems are empty and you still don't want to entosis it. Why not, is it because Entosis sucks? 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. You have been. As for why pay the sov bills it's to get people to entosis it all. Weaponized bullshit remember Meh i guss i don;t meta that well but kicking people out seems more important in war or traping them in then actual taking sov form the,. And the announcement of using sword fleet as much as possible is intersting choice. Overall this war so far has been a blast a ton of content and a good old fashioned fight I hope you guys are having fun with parts of it to. Even if the sov mechanics arn't to your liking.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:03:08 - [347] - Quote Wait, are you upset? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:16:49 - [348] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Wait, are you upset? Not at all I'm having a blast win or lose this has made eve so much fun right now. and as for sword fleet t3d's own zone them and if you use triage carriers to entosis they can;t even hurt them.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:22:32 - [349] - Quote I guess that's that Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:23:36 - [350] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I guess that's that it's all about conterplays theres option to fight that but interceptors wont. escelation seems to start with firgates and move up now instead of starting with caps and move into supper caps

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:29:39 - [351] - Quote I'm avoiding explaining anything because doing so might actually make it suck less psychologically. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:32:23 - [352] - Quote I mean if that's really how you understand it I'd rather it stay that way. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:50:19 - [353] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I mean if that's really how you understand it I'd rather it stay that way. If i'm missing a mechanic here please let me know. Everything in life and eve is a lareaning experaince so if i missed something I would lvoe to know about it.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1024	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:52:16 - [354] - Quote You don't have to take sov to evict somebody. Hence, vale. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:53:43 - [355] - Quote So correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't TEST abandon all their **** from the start? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:58:19 - [356] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: So correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't TEST abandon all their **** from the start? I think they did if they wanted it or not who knows. I have never had a sov home so I don't understand attachment to it but for some players they are attached to there sov some arn't if test cares about i have no idea same if you guys care about yours.. To me it's all about counter plays and watching explosions. Ships, pos, i hubs, and tcus are all the same to me. I can't wait to see the carange around the new citdels don't care if they work or not someone will build some. Overall I play eve to watch the explosions not to create but rather destroy so i may be the exception rather then the normal eve player.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 12:10:01 - [357] - Quote Xeno yes, I know. That's what makes you the quintessential PL line member. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1024	Posted - 2016.04.01 16:32:02 - [358] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: So correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't TEST abandon all their ** from the start? Holy ** you're right! GOONS HAVE WON THE WAR! Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.01 16:44:32 - [359] - Quote now jump up and down and celebrate proper. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.02 01:55:27 - [360] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: now jump up and down and celebrate proper. Overall I'm hoping for both sides this drags on for 5 to 6 years think of all of the fun content and changes it would brinig to the game. this has been a great discussion on mechanics though and I hope to see everyone on grid and space.

Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1031	Posted - 2016.04.02 07:29:53 - [361] - Quote Xeno Szenn wrote: Rain6637 wrote: now jump up and down and celebrate proper. Overall I'm hoping for both sides this drags on for 5 to 6 years think of all of the fun content and changes it would brinig to the game. this has been a great discussion on mechanics though and I hope to see everyone on grid and space. That would put 7 trillion isk in our pocket. I'm down. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Hawk Aulmais EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2	Posted - 2016.04.02 08:24:08 - [362] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You've abandoned more than half your space... sma has held the same amount of space. stop making it about "you have too much space" and just admit MBC is using the current meta to try and kill the cfc. yes we have pulled back since all of eve is pushing on us. but hey, GL holding all the "sov" you took since you will be faced with the same timer hell.
Tappits north eastern swat Pandemic Legion 208	Posted - 2016.04.02 08:46:00 - [363] - Quote Gloom skull Dethahal wrote: I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy. At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week. You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake. Thanks 1: Have less sov 2: Don't be at war 3: Have less sov Like really you have like 40 sov systems... why on earth do you need 40 sov systems for an alliance that has ~150 online players at any one time?
Darek Castigatus Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 704	Posted - 2016.04.02 14:07:16 - [364] - Quote Hawk Aulmais wrote: Aiwha wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You've abandoned more than half your space... sma has held the same amount of space. stop making it about "you have too much space" and just admit MBC is using the current meta to try and kill the cfc. yes we have pulled back since all of eve is pushing on us. but hey, GL holding all the "sov" you took since you will be faced with the same timer hell. 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. Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin you're welcome
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1031	Posted - 2016.04.02 16:39:54 - [365] - Quote Hawk Aulmais wrote: Aiwha wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You've abandoned more than half your space... sma has held the same amount of space. stop making it about "you have too much space" and just admit MBC is using the current meta to try and kill the cfc. yes we have pulled back since all of eve is pushing on us. but hey, GL holding all the "sov" you took since you will be faced with the same timer hell. We don't want the space. We just don't want you living in it. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 09:18:48 - [366] - 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 - [367] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1034	Posted - 2016.04.03 10:00:31 - [368] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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". 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. 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 11:03:25 - [369] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1034	Posted - 2016.04.03 11:35:28 - [370] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space? Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 13:25:31 - [371] - 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.
ArmyOfMe Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition 591	Posted - 2016.04.03 13:32:02 - [372] - Quote Lucas Kell 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? [/quote] Its not like you guys dont form blobs to kill roamers anyways.... 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. ArmyOfMe wrote: 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything. baltec1 wrote: We use the exact same tactic for titans and they enter warp instantly.
ArmyOfMe Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition 591	Posted - 2016.04.03 13:35:28 - [373] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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? Depends on which of the sov sytstems you are reffering to, you do know that, right? ArmyOfMe wrote: 1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything. baltec1 wrote: We use the exact same tactic for titans and they enter warp instantly.
March rabbit Federal Defense Union 1718	Posted - 2016.04.03 13:47:59 - [374] - Quote Aiwha wrote: If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space? Man, you are making Lucas (and other goon members in this thread) look really better than you. Is that really what are you trying to achieve? Even me (hater for goons for YEARS and person who left 2 good alliances just because they joined goon side) find myself agreeing with their points. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 14:09:00 - [375] - 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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 553	Posted - 2016.04.03 14:16:47 - [376] - Quote 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 what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Leonid Ragulin The Scope Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.04.03 14:36:24 - [377] - Quote I think the problem here is the number of timers that can co-exist. 3 timers per system, around 6 systems per constellation, that means each system can have sites for 18 different timers. What is happening is every timer is getting troll-reinforced, and the attackers are only following through with a few at a time. Please dont just throw hate on CFC/Imperium, anyone with a brain knows that as soon as they lose Branch, Tenal and Tribute, every single timer in those systems will be troll-reinforced 23/7 by them and the annoyance will be on the other side. As a solution, the number of timers needs to go down, and the possibility of multiple alliances owning structures in the same system needs to go. TCU's as a seperate entity are just a pointless mechanic. So: 1) Go back to the system where the ihub acts as a buffer to sov. Until you kill the ihub, you cant reinforce other structures in the system (apart from station services, that mechanic stays the same) 2) The station/outpost and the tcu cannot coexist. In systems where both exist, the tcu blows up, and the ownership of the station determines who has sov. In non-station systems, the tcu determines sov, and if the sov owner builds an outpost, the tcu blows up. So, the new mechanic to capture a system is either: reinforce ihub > kill ihub > reinforce station > freeport station > win freeport capture event, or reinforce ihub > kill ihub >reinforce tcu > kill tcu > online own tcu When stations are got rid of and non-soveriegn citadels become the only dockables, the owner of the old station gets a TCU back and TCUs become the only final soveriegnty structure. We then get a nice split - entosis is for soverignty, guns are for structures.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1036	Posted - 2016.04.03 14:45:46 - [378] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Oh, so that's why you guys like to pve so much. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 19:32:11 - [379] - 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.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 11565	Posted - 2016.04.03 20:04:40 - [380] - Quote The point of the new sov system is to reduce single-point conflicts. That goal was accomplished. Twitter: @EVEAndski "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar

Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1044	Posted - 2016.04.03 21:00:09 - [381] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Its plenty risky. Its also risky to own space. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 22:48:07 - [382] - 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.
Hawke Frost 18	Posted - 2016.04.03 23:15:42 - [383] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Feel free to leave 0.0
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.03 23:26:11 - [384] - Quote oh **** andski is back Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7445	Posted - 2016.04.03 23:28:49 - [385] - 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.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.03 23:46:46 - [386] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Nothing wrong with a good long blop vs blop fight with tons of tidi and nothing wrong with small skirmish over to large fights over sov. I have nothing against the imperium but this war is fun and good for the game. WarGÇÖs draw people into eve and brings people back to fight them. I honestly hope we have a war thatGÇÖs last for years like the Mattani says it well be because that will make the game interesting and fun to play. 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. 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. When this started the question and discussion was about sov harassment and the mechanics that are applied to that. This war has changed and evolved now sov mechanics can be used to cause player burnout as the Mattani said on his fireside chat is a desirable outcome. To quote him psyop or psychological warfare is something that the Imperium specialize in. We can look at all these mechanics and see if fozzie sov works or doesnGÇÖt work after the fightingGÇÖs over. 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. The current mechanics can be used just as much against the attacker by vulnerability windows as it does in the attackerGÇÖs favor. AS you pointed out it takes a lot of effort to constantly monitor your sov and protect it from an attacker. So far IGÇÖve noticed that your staging systems were untouched until this became a much bigger fight then it was when it was waffles, horde, and Tishu fighting you. Your main staging system was safe and easily held. The sov mechanics no matter how you change them will always boil down to a war of attrition. Space could be taken and lost but as long as people keep fighting and their war chest are fully stoked and able to keep the fight going itGÇÖs going to boil down to player numbers and motivation. The question is how motivated are you to defend and how motivated are we to attack. ItGÇÖs all going to boil down to will power and motivation. Honestly for us that are just playing the game it should be fun for both sides. For the people who build and maintain alliances and corps it could be a lot more stressful. The citadels and capital changes could make this conflict and entosis game mechanics even more interesting. How will all that effect sov mechanics and the creation or destruction of fortressGÇÖs I donGÇÖt know but I look forward to seeing it. Will everyone live in low sec? That is a possibility. Is sov doomed who knows it could be. I don;t think its the ned of sov ownership though but only time well tell.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:05:41 - [387] - Quote Are you honestly that clueless about what we're doing or is that just the weakest jedi mind trick I've ever seen. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:07:44 - [388] - Quote Would you mind if I explained what we're doing to you in plain english Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 556	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:14:50 - [389] - Quote Playing cards? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2339	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:16:04 - [390] - Quote Is it time for CCP to save the goons again? It should be almost time soon. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:25:03 - [391] - Quote lol CCP is parading this war like it will save EVE so I don't know what you're talking about. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:29:53 - [392] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Would you mind if I explained what we're doing to you in plain english I'm just having fun playing a game. I don;t do mind trick or the like i just enjoy eve and all the aspects of it minus pve. Win or lose for either side this war is going to be fun and bring people both into the game and back to the game even if for a short time. I have no grudge against any of you but this war is a lot of fun. I think the sov mechanic discussion has now evolved into a sov war discussion. This war might not save eve but it sure is making things interesting for now and I don;lt think eve is on it's death bed yet.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 556	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:35:54 - [393] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: lol CCP is parading this war like it will save EVE so I don't know what you're talking about. Concurrent player numbers are up, new account creation is up...the only thing that seems to be dropping is player counts for the remaining CFC alliances. Probably because being told to blueball, ignore your allies and watch your sov burn is boring as hell for your linemembers. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:38:44 - [394] - Quote Xeno this is a miniature manifesto of what has been said publicly by Mittens. This is also my interpretation so you know, evaluate it on your own for accuracy and truth. It is very clear that you value the goodfight gameplay. As a coalition we have made up our minds to deny you those fights. This aligns with our secondary goal of denying CCP their war. We want to place nothing but entosis nodes in front of you, and also leave CCP struggling for proof that a war is happening. The only unprecedented metrics we want them to see is the amount of stront used in entosis links, and the number of entosis minutes forced upon players. As far as I'm concerned this is the Un-War. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:41:19 - [395] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Rain6637 wrote: lol CCP is parading this war like it will save EVE so I don't know what you're talking about. Concurrent player numbers are up, new account creation is up...the only thing that seems to be dropping is player counts for the remaining CFC alliances. Probably because being told to blueball, ignore your allies and watch your sov burn is boring as hell for your linemembers. Let the concurrent player count rise so they may feel foolish for believing the hype. fyi a lot of the drops in numbers are our supercapital pilots unsubbing. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2339	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:43:11 - [396] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: lol CCP is parading this war like it will save EVE so I don't know what you're talking about. Trust CCP about as much as Pl. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:47:45 - [397] - Quote In a glorious turn of events this thread has become a testament to our best weapon in this war. The irony is just epic. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 556	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:52:41 - [398] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: In a glorious turn of events this thread has become a testament to our best weapon in this war. The irony is just epic. Your best weapon is the (questionable - 1/3 of Razor were super pilots?) number of superpilots you've unsubbed because your scared to deploy them because MBC has more? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:53:48 - [399] - Quote Because we're denying you that fight. It will absolutely not happen. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:54:50 - [400] - Quote This is where we take what you think is fun and don't do it. It's not hard to understand. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:56:34 - [401] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Xeno this is a miniature manifesto of what has been said publicly by Mittens. This is also my interpretation so you know, evaluate it on your own for accuracy and truth. It is very clear that you value the goodfight gameplay. As a coalition we have made up our minds to deny you those fights. This aligns with our secondary goal of denying CCP their war. We want to place nothing but entosis nodes in front of you, and also leave CCP struggling for proof that a war is happening. The only unprecedented metrics we want them to see is the amount of stront used in entosis links, and the number of entosis minutes forced upon players. As far as I'm concerned this is the Un-War. Oh I know your coalition will deny the good fights gameplay to work towards an objective and I find the Mattanis speeches and writings on eve and eve warfare interesting. The Good fight gameplay is a blast but war is so much more fun. This is the **** I read about a saw when I first came to eve at the end of the fountain war 2013ish and joined eve uni long before I bought Xeno to be my main. Or joined waffles where I found myself truly experiencing eve pvp in all it glory. The thing that makes eve amazing is the actual numbers of ways to fight unlike wow a game I left for eve. Breaking an enemyGÇÖs economy, their ability to field fleets, there very desire to fight. No other game I have every played has the felling that eve has. In this game you can lose everything and thatGÇÖs incredible. I might still just be too new to fully understand how these wars go. I missed the fountain war, The Halloween war, and all the other wars. This is the war IGÇÖve wanted to be a part of ever since I joined eve and read about Laz, Mr. Vee, Shadoo, Shamis, Elise, Grath and even the Mattani himself. The fall of BOB, the wars between the great eve powers. I missed all of that and now I finally get to be a part of a true eve war. Are parts of it going to suck sure are parts of it going to be amazing sure. IS it every going to be easy I hope not it would be sad if either side fell without a fight. BLueballs and denying fights are part of the game and a good strategy but for me itGÇÖs just fun to be a part of this war and watch how people react to it. Reddit says one thing, something awful says another, both sides have propaganda and try to motivate people to fight and win at any cost. This is why I joined eve in the first place because no other game gives you something like this. There is a lot I still donGÇÖt know about eve no clue why the Mattani is called Mittens, what started the great war and lead to the fight with bob. OLD Northern collation or southern collation how they fell or any of that. This could be an Un-war but for me itGÇÖs my first war so IGÇÖm not jaded by history yet. If I was around for those old fights and wars I might not have the views I do but since I wasnGÇÖt all I can go on is my experience and what IGÇÖve read and experienced.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 556	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:57:10 - [402] - Quote I'm happy fighting in ceptors as long as you guys are happy dying in them - personally I don't even fly a super because it looks boring as hell. But sure, you're denying my content....and the MBC player numbers are suffering as a result ~koolaid~ fwiw a quote from a corpmate earlier today "300 man ceptor gang with no tidi is the most fun I ever had in eve" but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 00:58:30 - [403] - Quote I never said anything about numbers except let it climb. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 556	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:00:25 - [404] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: I never said anything about numbers except let it climb. Yeah playerbase is climbing...but goons player count is dropping...and somehow via mittani-esq spin, this is a good thing for you? lmao http://evemaps.dotlan.net/corp/movements but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:01:17 - [405] - Quote lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 556	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:02:19 - [406] - Quote I mean if you drag this out for another 23 days...then that's another 1333 ceptor pilots that Horde has :) but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:02:54 - [407] - Quote lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sister MaryElephant Stellar Conundrum 8	Posted - 2016.04.04 03:48:57 - [408] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: lol Apparently CCP is unwilling to consult Kim Jong....errrr....lolmittens....about the name of the war. You think your one-man crusade to change game mechanics will draw more attention? I see your "lol" and raise you a FYI....sorry for interrupting NED's attempt at mini evac via WH space two nights ago. And HIC's on a WH in losec don't do much either..... Actually....you guys are not very good at this game.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 04:25:55 - [409] - Quote lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2796	Posted - 2016.04.04 04:31:24 - [410] - Quote 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7446	Posted - 2016.04.04 06:47:10 - [411] - 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 - [412] - 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.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2796	Posted - 2016.04.04 07:27:27 - [413] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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 I'm not patting myself on the back at all with that statement. One of the key tenets of this thread has been that the entosis war is annoying but not actually achieving anything because the space is being successfully defended. I'm just commenting that such is not the case. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Xeno Szenn Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 30	Posted - 2016.04.04 07:30:15 - [414] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. IF there's no point it it exsisting then let it die. And I disagree with you there sov is supposed to be about people creating a castle and defending it. I don;lt want to have it or need to have it to attack your castle.. SHould I have to fight and strugle for it sure but to lay sige to it I dont need to want it just have the desire to attack it. 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. Strange if i don;t need to be more stronger or more orginized why didn't you leave sov until everyone joined the fight. you guys could have left when it was just Tshu, horde, and waffles but since we couldn't fight all of you at once you held on till a greater force was assembled. 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. 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. Can a few things be tweaked sure but if you want Rome then you should have to create the armies, the infrastructure, and population of Rome. I think the Russians are over extended as well but that is beside the point. As for wasting your time it's your home if I come to burn it down shouldn't you have to fight me off. If I attack with a single frigate a single frigate can kill me. If people are constantly using the space. If I attack in mass, then a group needs to defend it. IF other people start complaining about that then I fell they are mistaken as well. My opinions are from my knowledge of eve and what I have read about and experienced. I will link my comments to others that complain about sov as well because honestly I think if you live there then defending it should be easy. Horde can live ratting in just a few systems and still make decent isk. As for mechanics that I do think are broken and are being changed is spider tanking slow cats, and supper caps in their current form. Members of my alliance probably will disagree with me but the idea of complete safety is something I donGÇÖt think should exist in eve and I'm happy there chaining it. Wormhole escalations and the amount of isk you can make in almost complete safety that should also be examined and changed because the isk can be amazing when I was doing it. T3 cruisers and t3 destroyers could potentially need to be rebalanced the Svipul in particular is one ship that seems overpowered in most situations. But of course IGÇÖm biased so take it with a grain of salt. I understand your position and that you disagree with what I'm saying and we donGÇÖt have to agree to discuss an issue. I honestly want a discussion on the subject. However, when it all comes down to your biased because your attacking of course you like it your attacking it limits the conversation. We are on opposite sides of this conflict but we are both people who play this game as a hobby for fun. If I were to say I would like to only entosis a structure once to flip, it or destroy it that would be c0mpletly unbalanced and biased towards the attacker. If I wanted to say only entosis a tcu to flip the system and the I hub and station flipped with it that would be biased. An honest discussion about the amount of space needed to live, Vulnerability windows, Should the attackers need to commit more and how can that be made better we have discussed. I disagree with some of your points and agree with a few suggestions you made to make sov better. To put it another perspective I got out played today and lost a cerb fleet to caracals because 1 I made mistakes and 2 I got outplayed. Should I go and ask for cerbs to be buffed because I lost that fleet or should I say I made mistakes and need to improve. I think I need to improve and not make those mistakes. I have enjoyed the discussion you Myself and Rain6637 have been having but lol youGÇÖre the attacker or lol your goons does limit the conversation a bit. As i'm sure my forum formatting does as well.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7446	Posted - 2016.04.04 08:34:20 - [415] - 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.
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1116	Posted - 2016.04.04 10:05:12 - [416] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Actually, structures are fine. One have to shoot them and tank them if they want to do something about it. Complete sov removal as a means to actually achieve occupancy sov? I'm pretty sure people are finally started to see the sandboxey light. Xeno Szenn wrote: I think the Russians are over extended as well but that is beside the point. Russians would fold as fast as Imperial fringe should they experience same pressure that people are putting on Imperium. But somehow their strategy works fine for them so far. Guess being mostly neutral, not trying to maintain high profile in EVE-related media while going out of their way to create an image of extremely obnoxious space dictators who own New Eden (and you too!) kinda helps with that. General playerbase being physically incapable to sh*tpost on public forums makes it more convenient to maintain such a policy in practice. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1116	Posted - 2016.04.04 10:06:03 - [417] - Quote Doublepost. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 10:40:11 - [418] - Quote Making sov organic somehow is a nice thought, but you wouldn't get the same satisfaction as long as players could contest sov ownership in forum threads with "yuh huh, nuh uh" Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Dark Lord Trump Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 18	Posted - 2016.04.04 10:54:53 - [419] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Lucas Kell wrote: stop them all Ah, there's your problem. You've overextended and can't defend all your space, so it gets taken from you. I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 10:58:49 - [420] - Quote lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 296	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:07:30 - [421] - Quote Lol = tears A case for more AoE in EvE
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2796	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:08:00 - [422] - Quote Dark Lord Trump wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Lucas Kell wrote: stop them all Ah, there's your problem. You've overextended and can't defend all your space, so it gets taken from you. 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:17:29 - [423] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Lol = tears get mental help friend Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 296	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:23:39 - [424] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Mr Mieyli wrote: Lol = tears get mental help friend Lol A case for more AoE in EvE
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:37:39 - [425] - Quote broadcast for reps Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Gregor Regulus Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:39:14 - [426] - Quote Zappity wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Lucas Kell wrote: stop them all Ah, there's your problem. You've overextended and can't defend all your space, so it gets taken from you. 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. There will be no place for them to hide. Plans are already being made about who will live in deklein, fade, branch etc. Trust me there is tons of interest for occupying the north. After we take all their space we will camp their low sec staging every day until their alliance shrinks to a level that we find satisfactory. The goons will only exist as a form that we allow.
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 296	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:40:48 - [427] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: broadcast for reps I'm not the one speaking untruths and "laughing" at the people coming to kick me out of my home. A case for more AoE in EvE
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:43:29 - [428] - Quote get help friend Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1052	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:48:54 - [429] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. March rabbit wrote: Aiwha wrote:** If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space? Man, you are making Lucas (and other goon members in this thread) look really better than you. Is that really what are you trying to achieve? Even me (hater for goons for YEARS and person who left 2 good alliances just because they joined goon side) find myself agreeing with their points. Concern troll harder. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:11:20 - [430] - 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 - [431] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33488	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:14:49 - [432] - Quote Lucas I don't think you understand how = works Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 557	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:17:31 - [433] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Making sov organic somehow is a nice thought, but you wouldn't get the same satisfaction as long as players could contest sov ownership in forum threads with "yuh huh, nuh uh" Maybe you should try undocking then? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:18:44 - [434] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:19:12 - [435] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Making sov organic somehow is a nice thought, but you wouldn't get the same satisfaction as long as players could contest sov ownership in forum threads with "yuh huh, nuh uh" Maybe you should try undocking then? I take it you only checked Rain6637's killboard. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:19:58 - [436] - 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:23:22 - [437] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sometimes I wonder if you guys are starting to believe your own propaganda. Sometimes? Starting? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 558	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:31:45 - [438] - Quote I love the little SMA Goonie double act you two have going on. I hope it's reflective of your whole alliances. It's like watching a forum reacharound. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:35:42 - [439] - Quote would Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1052	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:44:30 - [440] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. We've invested time and money into making your lives miserable. Its working. Blame your leaders for making so many enemies. Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:52:37 - [441] - Quote Oh I see we're still roleplaying tough guys. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1117	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:08:17 - [442] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. I give you that this means not making determined enemies is a better solution than any current sov mechanics, but then again, this comes down to what to use as a baseline for what sov holder should get. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:10:31 - [443] - 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 - [444] - 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.
March rabbit Federal Defense Union 1722	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:16:54 - [445] - Quote Gregor Regulus wrote: Zappity wrote: Dark Lord Trump wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: 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. Lucas Kell wrote: stop them all Ah, there's your problem. You've overextended and can't defend all your space, so it gets taken from you. 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. There will be no place for them to hide. Plans are already being made about who will live in deklein, fade, branch etc. Trust me there is tons of interest for occupying the north. After we take all their space we will camp their low sec staging every day until their alliance shrinks to a level that we find satisfactory. The goons will only exist as a form that we allow. Royal Amarr Institute is really scary The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1117	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:19:39 - [446] - Quote 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. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1054	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:32:46 - [447] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:32:48 - [448] - 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 - [449] - 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.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1054	Posted - 2016.04.04 14:24:01 - [450] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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. Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 14:29:24 - [451] - Quote Dude you sound really awesome but the reality is evemeet.jpg Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 14:33:19 - [452] - 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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 558	Posted - 2016.04.04 14:57:41 - [453] - 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. ...and SMA...and FCON...and TNT...and RAZOR but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Andrew Urbina Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.04.04 15:05:39 - [454] - Quote Pandemic Horde is recruiting.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1056	Posted - 2016.04.04 15:08:00 - [455] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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 ****. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Mario Putzo 1567	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:09:36 - [456] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. 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.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:17:12 - [457] - 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1361	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:28:03 - [458] - Quote M-O was massively entertaining because you contested it; almost won too. The reason you're all bored now and crying about it, is because you won't come out to play. Naturally station spinning is boring.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1057	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:28:09 - [459] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. We got paid to stop fighting each other and come on you. Which we gladly took because we both despise your leadership. After we roll you we'll probably get back to slapping each other silly. Again, this all comes down to you getting dogpiled because your coalitions diplomacy is absolute **. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 879	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:49:42 - [460] - Quote Aiwha wrote: We got paid to stop fighting each other and come ** on you. Which we gladly took because we both despise your leadership. After we roll you we'll probably get back to slapping each other silly. Again, this all comes down to you getting dogpiled because your coalitions diplomacy is absolute . Our diplomacy isn't any more ** than some of your bigger "allies". The main difference is that they gave up their territories last year without even trying to defend it once in Aegis sov, because like us, they already knew the new system would be kind of terrible, and unlike us they don't have the perseverance to even try.

Akballah Kassan Flames Of Chaos Mordus Angels 86	Posted - 2016.04.04 17:44:33 - [461] - Quote Waded through this thread and I'd had my own thoughts. 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. 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. Since the great war has kicked in we have had some great little fights with Imperium over sov in Pure Blind and because they are too scared now to drop supers (or if Mittens is to be believed it is a tactic to deny content) we have actually managed to take four systems! Now I'm not naive enough to believe we could ever hold it if things revert to previous conditions but the target is there for Imperium to attack but they won't - they are just hoping blue balling will bore people into defeat. 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! 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. 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?
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1059	Posted - 2016.04.04 18:25:54 - [462] - Quote Neuntausend wrote: Aiwha wrote: We got paid to stop fighting each other and come ** on you. Which we gladly took because we both despise your leadership. After we roll you we'll probably get back to slapping each other silly. Again, this all comes down to you getting dogpiled because your coalitions diplomacy is absolute . Our diplomacy isn't any more ** than some of your bigger "allies". The main difference is that they gave up their territories last year without even trying to defend it once in Aegis sov, because like us, they already knew the new system would be kind of terrible, and unlike us they don't have the perseverance to even try. No, its because they don't need or want pve space. They subsist entirely on local moongoo where they live and their rather substantial warchest from the N3 days (oh god, there is SO much money still laying around from those glory days of slumlording) and AT winnings. And I assume members either incursion or have WH escalation alts or something. They don't want to hold space. That's not how they want to play the game. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 879	Posted - 2016.04.04 18:33:43 - [463] - Quote No, they just don't want to put in effort to hold space. They clearly wanted to hold space for years before, otherwise they wouldn't have.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 18:37:19 - [464] - Quote The pain train don't got time for entosis Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1059	Posted - 2016.04.04 18:38:57 - [465] - Quote Neuntausend wrote: No, they just don't want to put in effort to hold space. They clearly wanted to hold space for years before, otherwise they wouldn't have. When renting was a thing. Then renting stopped being a thing. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Mario Putzo 1568	Posted - 2016.04.04 19:49:08 - [466] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Aiwha wrote: [quote=Mario Putzo]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. 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. The evidence that CFC was over extended is right there for you if you wish to look at it. Even the leadership of CFC has admitted they were probably holding more space then they could reliably hold, which is why they made no effort to hold Cloud Ring, or Tenal, or Tribute, because it their ability to defend that space was ineffective and their active pilot numbers inefficient for doing so. 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. 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. TLDR 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.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 19:51:14 - [467] - Quote lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 880	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:10:31 - [468] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: TLDR ProviBloc 15K dudes 1 Region, successful defense vs 40K man coalition CFC 40K dudes 8 Regions, abysmal failure vs 50K man coalition I'd go out on a limb and say ProviBloc wouldn't have been able to defend had we seriously wanted to invest more than a couple of days and actually claim it, which we didn't (why would we want to take a region at the other end of the cluster after Phoebe). Also, the Imperium has in no way abysmally failed yet, so I'd recommend waiting with that statement until it has actually happened. Compared to the Providence campaign, this war is already going much more slowly after having gone on for much longer, and it will slow down even more the more space we lose. That aside, though, I do agree to a certain level. ADMs in some parts have not exactly been stellar when the storm hit. Deklein has a lot of sixes, and very few systems lower than 4, simply because it's being used by a 17k strong alliance. So yes, having a 3k Alliance sitting on a regions worth of systems is simply too little people to properly occupy and defend it.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2800	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:25:49 - [469] - Quote This thread has become confused because the situation has changed considerably since it started. The main premise at the beginning was that a powerful entity should not be subject to harassment by a weaker entity through sov mechanics (Horde persecuting SMA). The current situation is that the Imperium is now being attacked by a stronger entity (pretty much the rest of EVE). Consolidating to a smaller footprint in order to more rapidly respond to light incursions would have worked well a few weeks ago. This would not work now because enough people are attacking that they would simply be overwhelmed regardless of the footprint. I don't see any logical way past a mechanic whereby a group with superior strength can dominate a weaker one. This is pretty much the whole point of sov warfare - weaker groups can be expelled from their space. Anything else would be an artificial block to the sandbox. It would be the equivalent of a mechanic which protected Providence from the Imperium incursion last year. The Imperium was stronger and could therefore do it. Now, the Imperium is weaker and cannot defend against the same being done to them. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 880	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:28:29 - [470] - Quote I agree, the situation has changed. But cut the crap about the imperium getting expelled for when you've actually managed to do it, will you? This war is far from over.

Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2800	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:28:40 - [471] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: TLDR 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. This is somewhat revisionist. The Imperium could certainly have razed Provi to the ground had they chosen to. They were quite successful with the IHubs. They just chose not to. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2800	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:31:30 - [472] - Quote Neuntausend wrote: I agree, the situation has changed. But cut the crap about the imperium getting expelled for when you've actually managed to do it, will you? This war is far from over. By this logic, the Imperium equals goonswarm. Because whilst you are still holding Deklein you are certainly not still holding Vale, Tribute, Fade etc. But I guess those weren't held by GSF so they don't count. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 11566	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:35:33 - [473] - Quote Aiwha wrote: We got paid to stop fighting each other and come ** on you. Which we gladly took because we both despise your leadership. After we roll you we'll probably get back to slapping each other silly. Again, this all comes down to you getting dogpiled because your coalitions diplomacy is absolute **. "this isn't about you, it's about your leadership" is a tired cliche and you should feel bad for using it I'm 99% confident you couldn't name anyone in Imperium leadership beyond The Mittani and Sion Twitter: @EVEAndski "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:36:59 - [474] - Quote Andski wrote: Aiwha wrote: We got paid to stop fighting each other and come ** on you. Which we gladly took because we both despise your leadership. After we roll you we'll probably get back to slapping each other silly. Again, this all comes down to you getting dogpiled because your coalitions diplomacy is absolute **. "this isn't about you, it's about your leadership" is a tired cliche and you should feel bad for using it I'm 99% confident you couldn't name anyone in Imperium leadership beyond The Mittani and Sion Ha trick question it's ALL mittens and Sion. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.04 20:37:54 - [475] - Quote Mostly Sion. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 881	Posted - 2016.04.04 21:46:51 - [476] - Quote Zappity wrote: Neuntausend wrote: I agree, the situation has changed. But cut the crap about the imperium getting expelled for when you've actually managed to do it, will you? This war is far from over. By this logic, the Imperium equals goonswarm. Because whilst you are still holding Deklein you are certainly not still holding Vale, Tribute, Fade etc. But I guess those weren't held by GSF so they don't count. The Imperium has lost quite a lot of space, this is true. I just don't consider that an abysmal failure in the face of a force superior in numbers and grr. In a war like this, space will be lost. It would be an abysmal failure for the attacking side were it not so. Don't think in individual alliances, because that's not what we are - the Imperium is a coalition and should be seen as one. As long as at least one Imperium alliance still holds space, all members of the Imperium will have a place to stay. edit: We also still hold most of the regions you listed. They certainly are on fire, but you have not taken them just yet.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 21:55:55 - [477] - 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.
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 296	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:00:16 - [478] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Aiwha wrote: Grr gons hat gons. Boo boo hoo You guys are funny, I'm having a great time watching the replies in this thread A case for more AoE in EvE
Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 881	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:04:58 - [479] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Andski wrote: I'm 99% confident you couldn't name anyone in Imperium leadership beyond The Mittani and Sion Ha trick question it's ALL mittens and Sion. I find this guy with the hat disturbing. He's a leader, right?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:07:40 - [480] - 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.

Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1059	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:17:28 - [481] - Quote Andski wrote: Aiwha wrote: We got paid to stop fighting each other and come ** on you. Which we gladly took because we both despise your leadership. After we roll you we'll probably get back to slapping each other silly. Again, this all comes down to you getting dogpiled because your coalitions diplomacy is absolute **. "this isn't about you, it's about your leadership" is a tired cliche and you should feel bad for using it I'm 99% confident you couldn't name anyone in Imperium leadership beyond The Mittani and Sion DBRB whelping ceptor fleets and Digi hiding in the bushes across your street. Winet biomassed so we can't really mock him anymore since he's gonna go to ground. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:21:30 - [482] - 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.
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 106	Posted - 2016.04.04 22:56:44 - [483] - Quote 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.
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2801	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:02:31 - [484] - Quote If this force was arrayed against the Imperium in Dominion sov, you would not be able to fight it. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:06:04 - [485] - 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.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2725	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:06:09 - [486] - Quote GetSirrus wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Sure, using small ships to harass has always and will always be a thing, but using a single small disposable ship to actually contest soc, that's new, and dumb. Lucas Kell wrote: That's because small groups who don't hold sov or don't care about the sov they hold aren't negatively impacted, so why would they complain? They get to cause a massive reaction and risk losing one ship to do it. So it's not really new, and if it has always been a thing? You could do harassement by hunting ratters/miners but not contest SOV itself. Nobody was going around SBUing a system with a T1 frig. They would not DPS down a station or an ihub either. You could always do "something" in small ship but not to the level you can now.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7447	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:08:21 - [487] - 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.
Cien Banchiere Extrinsic Arcadia Distribution 50	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:29:15 - [488] - Quote Jesus, I read the first two pages and next thing I know, BLAM, 23 pages of stuff to kill time with at work. This is fun.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 11566	Posted - 2016.04.05 00:14:10 - [489] - Quote Aiwha wrote: DBRB whelping ceptor fleets and Digi hiding in the bushes across your street. Winet biomassed so we can't really mock him anymore since he's gonna go to ground. The berb is the berb but you redditeurs have some ridiculous ideas about what our CI does Twitter: @EVEAndski "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -á-á - Abrazzar
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.05 01:20:13 - [490] - Quote Did Winet really biomass Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33490	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:12:44 - [491] - Quote Wow he biomassed. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 570	Posted - 2016.04.05 10:06:57 - [492] - Quote Andski wrote: Aiwha wrote: DBRB whelping ceptor fleets and Digi hiding in the bushes across your street. Winet biomassed so we can't really mock him anymore since he's gonna go to ground. The berb is the berb but you redditeurs have some ridiculous ideas about what our CI does because he totally didn't admit to doxxing? http://puu.sh/cWAFh/e6112045cf.png I mean wow, this is like the oldest news ever. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1363	Posted - 2016.04.05 10:34:13 - [493] - Quote Don't forget the hilarious years and years of logs kept to castigate people who leave. I mean, you ever stop to think you're taking this all a bit too seriously?
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 570	Posted - 2016.04.05 10:51:48 - [494] - Quote #kreepyfleet is recruiting It'd be funny if it wasn't so true :( but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Dark Lord Trump Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 19	Posted - 2016.04.05 10:56:09 - [495] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: 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. You can call something "debunked" all you like, but you yourself admit you can't stop all the timers, which suggests that you've overextended. If you can't defend all your space, maybe it's better that it gets taken from you. I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 706	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:13:57 - [496] - Quote It's almost like faction warfare. We go out and spin round nodes... Except we get ADM stuff so strategic ratting and mining to keep sov is suddenly a thing. It is sht gameplay, but I have come back to drag the rest of the universe through that sht. We'll see who rusts first. Edit: Also, man up OP. If this war were decided by decisive battles, we would lose. As it is, we suddenly get the chance to drag everyone through the mud with us in a Fozzie-sov bonanza! For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33491	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:18:33 - [497] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: It's almost like faction warfare. We go out and spin round nodes... Except we get ADM stuff so strategic ratting and mining to keep sov is suddenly a thing. It is sht gameplay, but I have come back to drag the rest of the universe through that sht. We'll see who rusts first. It's more like Fiction Warfare Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 570	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:21:48 - [498] - Quote The sad thing is that even when it's baby titans and supers on the line rather than 'meaningless sov' CFC still won't come fight and accuses the other side of blueballing...whilst they're killing 100B of their assets in (edit) TWO a POSes. So it doesn't matter what tools CCP gives us to initiate a fight, when one side wants to blueball, they blueball. Would have been exactly the same situation in dominion sov except the attacking would have been 100x slower and more tedious. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33491	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:27:48 - [499] - Quote shut up your words are blah blah blah you got a csaa be happy with it. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
March rabbit Federal Defense Union 1722	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:28:11 - [500] - Quote Aiwha wrote: They don't want to hold space. I would not call it success of Fozziesov if it is only cool for those who "don't want to hold space". The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 706	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:31:53 - [501] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: The sad thing is that even when it's baby titans and supers on the line rather than 'meaningless sov' CFC still won't come fight and accuses the other side of blueballing...whilst they're killing 100B of their assets in (edit) TWO a POSes. So it doesn't matter what tools CCP gives us to initiate a fight, when one side wants to blueball, they blueball. Would have been exactly the same situation in dominion sov except the attacking would have been 100x slower and more tedious. You went to war with goons. Best decision in your EVE life. Enjoy the war. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Akballah Kassan Flames Of Chaos Mordus Angels 88	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:32:46 - [502] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: BLAH BLAH BLAH TEARS TEARS Perhaps if you spent more time hunting those leet Condor's that are terrorising your alliance bro's rather then crap posting here you wouldn't have to evacuate 'FORTRESS FADE' lol lol.
Mallak Azaria GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6607	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:34:49 - [503] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Andski wrote: The berb is the berb but you redditeurs have some ridiculous ideas about what our CI does because he totally didn't admit to doxxing? Yeah. How does doxxing someone who made that information available by posting it on public services in the first place correlate with stalking? This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 570	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:35:50 - [504] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: You went to war with goons. Best decision in your EVE life. Enjoy the war. I'm hoping it lasts as long as Mittens promises...it's been a riot so far Rain6637 wrote: shut up your words are blah blah blah you got a csaa be happy with it. TWO csaa's with a leviathan and a hel inside... and we got to watch Laz run off because those bee guys couldn't form any kind of numbers in opposition... And yet another group of PvPers left you this morning. Now where's my failscade bingo card. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33491	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:40:03 - [505] - Quote I told you pages ago you won't get the war you want. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 570	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:41:55 - [506] - Quote We're enjoying the war that you're offering already: plenty of easy kills and making your whole leadership look terrible whilst disparate groups splinter away... **** this attrition is killing me. Please don't make me continue undocking whilst you ship spin in station. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33491	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:59:40 - [507] - Quote It's bad when the hype detaches you from reality. Keep it up though. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 570	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:01:01 - [508] - Quote It is indeed. Can you honestly keep a straight face when listening to mittens? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:14:10 - [509] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: It is indeed. Can you honestly keep a straight face when listening to mittens? It's probably groupthink on our part. But yes, we love it more than you love that dribble from Reddit. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 570	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:21:44 - [510] - Quote I've got sandals that flip flop less than his narrative. > Holds a SOTA: "The station is the objective boys, dont worry bout the ihub" > Loses station > "We held the ihub boys, mission complete" Da **** is in that koolaid, rohypnol? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33492	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:22:19 - [511] - Quote When mittens talks to us it's pretty much all the propaganda we need. I've listened to each of his fireside chat soundclouds twice. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33492	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:23:07 - [512] - Quote dude stuff changes from week to week Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2725	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:23:28 - [513] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Aiwha wrote: They don't want to hold space. I would not call it success of Fozziesov if it is only cool for those who "don't want to hold space". That dosen't fit the narrative tho.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:25:29 - [514] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: When mittens talks to us it's pretty much all the propaganda we need. I've listened to each of his fireside chat soundclouds twice. I resubbed right after that first firechat after M-O... For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 571	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:48:57 - [515] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: I resubbed right after that first firechat after M-O... So you cancel out the one guy in mittani twitch that wasn't going to be able to plex this month and was salty about leaving the game. Amyclas Amatin wrote: Just had to F*** traitors... and the rest of the universe. Let us know when you undock to do that. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1059	Posted - 2016.04.05 12:57:53 - [516] - Quote Andski wrote: Aiwha wrote: DBRB whelping ceptor fleets and Digi hiding in the bushes across your street. Winet biomassed so we can't really mock him anymore since he's gonna go to ground. The berb is the berb but you redditeurs have some ridiculous ideas about what our CI does I know he blackmails people who are still in the closet for in game profit. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 13854	Posted - 2016.04.05 13:00:15 - [517] - Quote Virtual space god forgive me for linking gevlon lol. http://greedygoblin.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/march-emporium-losses-who-betrayed-who.html Being that Co2 is with us now (I'm in TEST) I've had an opportunity to talk to a few Co2 guys I used to be in another crop with. The phrase "tired of being someone's s meatshield" gets used a lot. TBH I felt much the same way when I was in IM (Init Mercs) and used to join CFC fleets, you can only be an 'associate' so long before it starts to chafe IMO.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33492	Posted - 2016.04.05 13:28:42 - [518] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Let us know when you undock to do that. no Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1714	Posted - 2016.04.05 13:46:37 - [519] - Quote So this is the GoonHorn.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 571	Posted - 2016.04.05 14:17:30 - [520] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Let us know when you undock to do that. no So you got guys resubbing...to ship spin. Gonna be fun seeing how that works out for you :D but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

ISD Fractal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1152	Posted - 2016.04.05 14:40:07 - [521] - Quote Quote: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. This thread seems to have become derailed so I will close it here. ISD Fractal Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page]

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.