These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

2014 Sov War strategy

First post
Author
Flex Carter
Caldari Independant Mining Association
#21 - 2014-01-21 06:47:28 UTC
Eve internet war strategist… Why the hell did I have to attend the War College in Newport when I could’ve have just came here.Ugh
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#22 - 2014-01-21 10:35:39 UTC
This thread has been moved to Warfare & Tactics. I have also removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


26. 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.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#23 - 2014-01-21 11:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
Lucas Kell wrote:
So in your mind, choosing to defend an asset is a lack of strategy? While they mashed a final timer, taking a system, we should have gone and started a timer for something we didn't want and was of no strategic importance to us? Is that essentially what you are saying?


Don't worry, appropriately named Space Monkey, just keep throwing the big ships at each other and hope that this time it will be different.

Something we didn't want is not the same as something the enemy wants/can't afford to lose. But ok, keep running after timers and playing whack a mole, just don't wonder why it's always the same.

EDIT: Either way I don't care, I don't have any skin in that game. I'm just fed up of reading about people complaining that the results are always the same, when they are doing exactly the same thing every time.
Ka'Narlist
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#24 - 2014-01-21 13:29:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Ka'Narlist
Best thing is when goons claim in 6vdt everything went fine and only in hed there where those problems, when in 6vdt we had the same problems, although we didn't jump directly on grid.
But hey in 6vdt goons where first on grid and I guess its only a problem when it affects you Roll
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#25 - 2014-01-21 16:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
So in your mind, choosing to defend an asset is a lack of strategy?


Trading a pawn for a queen certainly is.

Lucas Kell wrote:
While they mashed a final timer, taking a system, we should have gone and started a timer for something we didn't want and was of no strategic importance to us?


No, you should have started a timer for something that was of strategic importance to them. Wait, change that. You should have started timers on several targets that they would have to defend later.

You lose one thing, they lose two... or more. See above.
I think it's pretty clear why you are not a leading strategist in a null alliance. HED was a final timer and numbers wise, the system had plenty of capacity. We had the force to have a good battle against the enemy, and that's what the game is supposedly designed for, fleet battles.
Your idea is to run away and start a few initial timers, which would be completely ineffective, since to actually have an effect several more battles would need to take place after waiting out the timers. Honestly, it's one of the dumber ideas I've heard lately, and I've heard some doozies.

Ptraci wrote:
Don't worry, appropriately named Space Monkey, just keep throwing the big ships at each other and hope that this time it will be different.

Something we didn't want is not the same as something the enemy wants/can't afford to lose. But ok, keep running after timers and playing whack a mole, just don't wonder why it's always the same.

EDIT: Either way I don't care, I don't have any skin in that game. I'm just fed up of reading about people complaining that the results are always the same, when they are doing exactly the same thing every time.
This is barely intelligible, but I'm guessing it means that you think we should simply not fight for the system. Really strange that, since one of the biggest marketing points of EVE is the enormous fleet battles. If it's entirely OK by you, I'd actually like to keep those in, and not simply run away when an enemy fleet shows up.

*Snip* Please refrain from attacks at CCP. ISD Ezwal

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#26 - 2014-01-21 16:42:07 UTC
Ka'Narlist wrote:
Best thing is when goons claim in 6vdt everything went fine and only in hed there where those problems, when in 6vdt we had the same problems, although we didn't jump directly on grid.
But hey in 6vdt goons where first on grid and I guess its only a problem when it affects you Roll
Oh look, TEST are still around. Who knew.

6VDT stayed up and responsive enough all the way past the 4000 player mark. HED practically stopped responding at around 3000 players. I didn't see a single person from anywhere say beforehand "oh, too many players", because it was way under what we would expect a node to handle. Of course, hind sight being 20/20, it's easy to look back and point out where things didn't work right? I guess TEST have had a lot of practice, since you can pretty much look back and point at everything.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#27 - 2014-01-21 20:14:31 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Lucas Kell wrote:
This is barely intelligible, but I'm guessing it means that you think we should simply not fight for the system. Really strange that, since one of the biggest marketing points of EVE is the enormous fleet battles. If it's entirely OK by you, I'd actually like to keep those in, and not simply run away when an enemy fleet shows up.

*Snip* Please refrain from attacks at CCP. ISD Ezwal


No, apparently it was completely unintelligible. I understand you like battles. So do I, which is why I pew. What I don't understand is how you can call sitting and staring at TiDi for 4 hours a "battle". Tell me you love that part of EVE, and I will call you a liar. You would love to be able to DO something during that "battle", to maybe participate over and above watching an ultra-slow motion ballet where your actions may or may not have an effect if you stay around long enough and don't DC. But the status quo? No.

It's better than it was by all means, it takes a lot more people to stress the nodes than it used to, and CCP has made progress. But no matter how much you have today, tomorrow you are going to try to get more.

The very basic mechanics behind large scale EVE PvP have to be revisited and addressed. Short of CCP licensing CPU time from NUDT Tianhe-2 or the Cray Titan in Oak Ridge, I think we've proven that EVE players will continue to throw ships at each other UNTIL the node crashes. Either CCP will have to force combat to spread over several systems via an artificial mechanic or players will have to do this voluntarily, there's no choice.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#28 - 2014-01-21 20:22:45 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Ptraci wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
This is barely intelligible, but I'm guessing it means that you think we should simply not fight for the system. Really strange that, since one of the biggest marketing points of EVE is the enormous fleet battles. If it's entirely OK by you, I'd actually like to keep those in, and not simply run away when an enemy fleet shows up.

*Snip* Please refrain from attacks at CCP. ISD Ezwal


No, apparently it was completely unintelligible. I understand you like battles. So do I, which is why I pew. What I don't understand is how you can call sitting and staring at TiDi for 4 hours a "battle". Tell me you love that part of EVE, and I will call you a liar. You would love to be able to DO something during that "battle", to maybe participate over and above watching an ultra-slow motion ballet where your actions may or may not have an effect if you stay around long enough and don't DC. But the status quo? No.

It's better than it was by all means, it takes a lot more people to stress the nodes than it used to, and CCP has made progress. But no matter how much you have today, tomorrow you are going to try to get more.

The very basic mechanics behind large scale EVE PvP have to be revisited and addressed. Short of CCP licensing CPU time from NUDT Tianhe-2 or the Cray Titan in Oak Ridge, I think we've proven that EVE players will continue to throw ships at each other UNTIL the node crashes. Either CCP will have to force combat to spread over several systems via an artificial mechanic or players will have to do this voluntarily, there's no choice.
There is the third option, and that is to refactor their core code into a system that can be load balanced. Right now they have to cram the whole battle onto a single core. If they could distribute that load, they could easily handle more than they currently do, even with their existing hardware. Either way though, you're right, the battles they have now are getting too big for them to handle and they are just no fun.

Note, I want to keep large battles, I think that's important to EVE, they just need to find a better way to handle them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#29 - 2014-01-21 22:57:43 UTC
Where's the "Group Ships" in the fleet window, or "group drones" on the drone window? All y'all are flying the exact same boring ship in these massive fleet fights. Might as well group them together like we do with guns and be done with it.
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#30 - 2014-01-22 00:47:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I think it's pretty clear why you are not a leading strategist in a null alliance.


Correct, but I have been in the Allied High Command over in Battleground Europe. Some strategies are universal.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0

Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-01-22 12:29:08 UTC
For those of you who complain that going on the offensive isn't an effective strategy. I've done my nullsec stint, I've been on the aggressing and defending side for sov warfare. Most of the time, the timers are avoided until the it's important to fight (i.e. You've got all of your bat phone sorted and the CTA's all planned). It is that mentality that causes the problem.

If you can put together a 700 man dread fleet and 1,000+ sub cap Dominix fleet, not to mention the over abundance of slow cats then clearly all alliance level strategist have just been failing lalely. Take HED for example, the system was SBU'ed and nothing proactive was done about it except prepare for "omgwad 4+ tidi battle royale". It's already widely known how easy it is to reinforce the required structures. Why not take that massive fleet, and wait for it......

Launch a counter offensive on 10-15 systems at once? Holy **** batman, we have to use smaller, more coordinated fleets to make them reconsider taking just one of our systems. 700 dreads? 100 dreads/system means 1 siege cycle (5 mins). There's 7 systems ready for the next round of timers. But they'll take our system. Yeah go drop another 100 dreads and start the process over on that newly acquired system. Now they have to choose with losing some of their important systems or the one they just took. Or if you're smart then you'll take more than 1, especially when the meta is load up in one system and lag it out to death. You can't lag out 15 systems at one time.

Silly nullbears, learn to meta....

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------

Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#32 - 2014-01-22 16:02:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
it has always been same, you need so much people that systems lagg and then you can win *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#33 - 2014-01-22 19:10:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Yun Kuai wrote:
For those of you who complain that going on the offensive isn't an effective strategy. I've done my nullsec stint, I've been on the aggressing and defending side for sov warfare. Most of the time, the timers are avoided until the it's important to fight (i.e. You've got all of your bat phone sorted and the CTA's all planned). It is that mentality that causes the problem.

If you can put together a 700 man dread fleet and 1,000+ sub cap Dominix fleet, not to mention the over abundance of slow cats then clearly all alliance level strategist have just been failing lalely. Take HED for example, the system was SBU'ed and nothing proactive was done about it except prepare for "omgwad 4+ tidi battle royale". It's already widely known how easy it is to reinforce the required structures. Why not take that massive fleet, and wait for it......

Launch a counter offensive on 10-15 systems at once? Holy **** batman, we have to use smaller, more coordinated fleets to make them reconsider taking just one of our systems. 700 dreads? 100 dreads/system means 1 siege cycle (5 mins). There's 7 systems ready for the next round of timers. But they'll take our system. Yeah go drop another 100 dreads and start the process over on that newly acquired system. Now they have to choose with losing some of their important systems or the one they just took. Or if you're smart then you'll take more than 1, especially when the meta is load up in one system and lag it out to death. You can't lag out 15 systems at one time.

Silly nullbears, learn to meta....
This sounds like the rambling of someone that has no idea about sov mechanics. Why would you pass up defending a sov 5 system just to got an start timer 1 in a whole bunch of others?
And the meta is not "lag it to death", it's "bring what you need to win". Unfortunately to counter what was there was too much for the node to cope with, which quite honestly I'm surprised about, this was supposed to be the super node, and it's not like CCP didn't know what was coming, they reinforced the staging system to cope.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Froggy Storm
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2014-01-23 06:32:26 UTC
Just to chime in for the benefit of the "go hit them else where" faction. Let us not forget the huge strategic importance of HED from a logistics standpoint. It is a critical nul-hi sec junction for controlling the assets in and out of the war zone.
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
#35 - 2014-01-23 14:09:06 UTC
Froggy Storm wrote:
Just to chime in for the benefit of the "go hit them else where" faction. Let us not forget the huge strategic importance of HED from a logistics standpoint. It is a critical nul-hi sec junction for controlling the assets in and out of the war zone.


and sometimes you have to withdraw and aim to retake at a later date, in order to win the war.


Also Jump Freighters, Carriers and other Cap ships. You do not really need a jump bridge, as nice as it is. Guess their would be a benefit from a Ship Hangar in one of the Jump Freighters.

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-01-24 03:20:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Lucas Kell wrote:
Yun Kuai wrote:
For those of you who complain that going on the offensive isn't an effective strategy. I've done my nullsec stint, I've been on the aggressing and defending side for sov warfare. Most of the time, the timers are avoided until the it's important to fight (i.e. You've got all of your bat phone sorted and the CTA's all planned). It is that mentality that causes the problem.

If you can put together a 700 man dread fleet and 1,000+ sub cap Dominix fleet, not to mention the over abundance of slow cats then clearly all alliance level strategist have just been failing lalely. Take HED for example, the system was SBU'ed and nothing proactive was done about it except prepare for "omgwad 4+ tidi battle royale". It's already widely known how easy it is to reinforce the required structures. Why not take that massive fleet, and wait for it......

Launch a counter offensive on 10-15 systems at once? Holy **** batman, we have to use smaller, more coordinated fleets to make them reconsider taking just one of our systems. 700 dreads? 100 dreads/system means 1 siege cycle (5 mins). There's 7 systems ready for the next round of timers. But they'll take our system. Yeah go drop another 100 dreads and start the process over on that newly acquired system. Now they have to choose with losing some of their important systems or the one they just took. Or if you're smart then you'll take more than 1, especially when the meta is load up in one system and lag it out to death. You can't lag out 15 systems at one time.

Silly nullbears, learn to meta....
This sounds like the rambling of someone that has no idea about sov mechanics. Why would you pass up defending a sov 5 system just to got an start timer 1 in a whole bunch of others?
And the meta is not "lag it to death", it's "bring what you need to win". Unfortunately to counter what was there was too much for the node to cope with, which quite honestly I'm surprised about, this was supposed to be the super node, and it's not like CCP didn't know what was coming, they reinforced the staging system to cope.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal



The point isn't to just give up defending a sov 5 system. The point is do some proactive about it instead of coming to the forums to complain. You have any where from 4-5 days, until that final timer comes out.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
you could go form up a fleet to counter attack their systems. Go SBU a handful of their important systems which gives you something to do between the timers and keeps them on their toes. At no point did I say not try to defend, but waiting until the very last timer to do it is a bit of a joke.

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#37 - 2014-01-24 07:48:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Yun Kuai wrote:

The point isn't to just give up defending a sov 5 system. The point is do some proactive about it instead of coming to the forums to complain. You have any where from 4-5 days, until that final timer comes out.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
you could go form up a fleet to counter attack their systems. Go SBU a handful of their important systems which gives you something to do between the timers and keeps them on their toes. At no point did I say not try to defend, but waiting until the very last timer to do it is a bit of a joke.
Yes, because no battles happened prior to HED right?

No matter how many systems we'd attacked, the outcome would be the same, they'd still attack and we'd still have to defend, and since we wouldn't be able to get a final timer in by the same data, they wouldn't need to be on their toes, since they can wait out the final timer, and defend their timers as well. The only way to distract them would be to do something critical to happen on the day, which is impossible because of the timers.

At the end of the day, if they show up to fight a final timer on a sov 5 border system, most people would choose to defend. Since this game isn't about sitting around playing in single player avoiding each other, that is a GOOD THING. Now we just need to have it so that when both sides do turn up they can actually battle it out and have fun. It's a game, and that's what's supposed to happen in it. Running around punching out timers is not fun, hence the calls for years to change sov mechanics to something more active.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#38 - 2014-01-24 16:55:49 UTC
The solution is simple: abandon sov.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Ginger Barbarella
#39 - 2014-01-24 23:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ginger Barbarella
Eryn Velasquez wrote:

1. Bring in numbers of worthless ships until the system is running in TiDi

2. Take 2 other fleets and burn other systems to the ground while the wrecking ball is bubbled and captured in Tidi.



This. +1 Pirate

Alternatively, you could join other losers in high sec shooting miners and baiting mission runners by shooting their MTUs.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2014-01-25 10:59:56 UTC
When the longbow slaughtered the French the French did not whine about it, they did research into cannons and crushed the English.
What we need is a better weapon. At the time when fleets consisted of 249km battleships (and then the side the most won, probably) then capitals arrived and we had half a decade of changing fleet doctrines. Now we have all arrived at the best doctrine, which is slowcats (unless the arty nags nag them to death), so the fleet with the most carriers win. Now it is that time when CCP needs to release a new bigger weapon system that can decide the battle if 1 of them turns up in a slowcat engagement (or 10 if its cheap, 1 if its like titan expensive).

"For each one you can demonstrate, I'll lay a bet I can show you at least 10 more where a really clever General has met an opposing force directly and won." - A hundred battles have been lost against superior forces for every 1 battle that was won against superior forces. If you won with 10 000 against 20 000 easily, then the force of 10 000 was the superior force.
Previous page123Next page