These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why all the hate on sov ?

Author
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#61 - 2015-08-17 16:41:04 UTC
This is GD not F&I, I'm not falling for it.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2015-08-17 16:48:51 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I did get one thing wrong about my predictions.
I think both myself and CCP didn't expect it.

No one wants Null Sec enough to abuse these mechanics and take the space.

But... they are willing to do it to troll the space (specifically the people holding space I guess)

Op success Big smile

This is getting very boring, very fast.

If you have solutions, post em.
If not, you aint offering much except uninspired trolling that doesnt even antagonize, rather just bores.

Trolling 101, always use some real bait.
You are fishing with nothing on your hook...


One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#63 - 2015-08-17 16:50:48 UTC
VV ((goon tears about moa interceptors))

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Jenshae Chiroptera
#64 - 2015-08-17 16:54:26 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
... If you have solutions, post em.
If not, you aint offering much except uninspired trolling that doesnt even antagonize, rather just bores. ....
Top of the previous page.
We also deserve some, "I told you so," because we saw this system was useless before it was implemented.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#65 - 2015-08-17 16:55:22 UTC
Is this another grrrceptors forum CTA?
Did goons already finish the mining and ratting CTAs they had for raising their indices?

Tune in next month for more of the same from those that can't adapt.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Salvos Rhoska
#66 - 2015-08-17 17:18:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Top of the previous page.
We also deserve some, "I told you so," because we saw this system was useless before it was implemented.

Acknowledged and granted.
Almost as good as tears Pirate
baltec1 wrote:


One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.

I agree. Context of your response here is odd, but nonetheless, as I spent some time delineating in another thread, which I submit here for your consideration:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5973034#post5973034
Quote:
Ive come around to agreeing the Entosis module needs changing. Simplest solution is hard ship class restrictions, second are PG/ CPU/skill restrictions, third and most complicated is a new Entosis specific range of ships, fourth an aggregate of all the above where the efficacy of the link is dependant with all the above.

Parallel changes would be requiring more (numerous and/or efficient) links as a threshold to surpass equivalence to the defence index.

I dont think the interceptor ship class was ever designed or intended for this purpose, with its specific peculiarities. Its arguable whether this is now as intended, because its expected CCP was readily informed by the community beforehand this would happen, but went ahead with it anyways.

One of the stated goals, was making it possible for just about anyone to conflict sov.
Inline with this, it means a single player can now challenge sov. Though the intent is interesting, in practice I think its a bit unfair and lowers the bar too far in terms of commitment. It enables any single independant player too far considering how many people that disables in the system in question. The "trolling" aspect comes into effect here, when one player can disrupt the equilibrium of a larger group, with little to no risk to himself. (Which concretely represents what trolling is in any community).

I dont think 1 ship should be enough to do this, unless as in option 3, its a specific Entosis ship class, or as in options 1-2 the ship class is reasonably vulnerable in its invasion attempt.
Especially not in a single class of ship which really already has other design specific functions (interceptor) and is effectively immune to reprisal.

The core irony here being that its exactly the interceptor class itself which should be ideal for engaging an Entosing aggressor, rather than vice versa as is now the case. Enganging and tackling an aggressor is what an interceptor does. Its a paradox that an interceptor is in and of itself now effectively un-interceptable as an entosis link.

Ideally, Id like to see a range of Entosis specific class ships, which then form the foothold and "flag carriers" of an invasion attempt, with all the peculiar, diverse and specific ship traits for each race alongside that. This ofc is time consuming, expensive and rife with balance issues. So CCP, expediently, instead went with a generalisation of the module. But this has resulted, as I tried to outline above, in a perversion and abberation of the interceptor classes existing capacity and function (whether intended or not).

See what I mean?

Opinions, bias, enlightened self-interest aside, it just doesnt make sense on an objective level, that a ship class designed for intercepting can now utilise those same capacities to be uninterceptable (except as to force it off), while doing something (Entosing) that has nothing to do with its intercepting impetus."
Jenshae Chiroptera
#67 - 2015-08-17 17:20:20 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Tune in next month for more of the same from those that can't adapt.
We adapted.

Fozzie SOV is tedious.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#68 - 2015-08-17 17:23:08 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Tune in next month for more of the same from those that can't adapt.
We adapted.

Fozzie SOV is tedious.

More or less tedious than a supercapital cold war with only 2 battles/year?

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2015-08-17 17:26:30 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Tune in next month for more of the same from those that can't adapt.
We adapted.

Fozzie SOV is tedious.

More or less tedious than a supercapital cold war with only 2 battles/year?

About the same so far, which kinda defeats the purpose of the revamp, eh?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#70 - 2015-08-17 17:35:00 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Tune in next month for more of the same from those that can't adapt.
We adapted.
Fozzie SOV is tedious.
More or less tedious than a supercapital cold war with only 2 battles/year?
More in Provi at least.
Less real gangs, more troll-ceptors.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2015-08-17 17:49:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.


How is this an answer? If pilots can't bypass gatecamps because their ship is too big you'll be able to protect hundreds of systems 99% of the time with one gatecamp.

He're another answer, stop trying to control everything and unblue some people.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~

Jenshae Chiroptera
#72 - 2015-08-17 23:55:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Sentamon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.
How is this an answer? If pilots can't bypass gatecamps because their ship is too big you'll be able to protect hundreds of systems 99% of the time with one gatecamp. .
Nullified, cloaked T3 cruisers.
At least they would be putting 400M into attempting to get SOV then.

How about there actually be space where a group can grow large enough to challenge Goons?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2015-08-18 00:01:19 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.
How is this an answer? If pilots can't bypass gatecamps because their ship is too big you'll be able to protect hundreds of systems 99% of the time with one gatecamp. .
Nullified, cloaked T3 cruisers.
At least they would be putting 400M into attempting to get SOV then.

How about there actually be space where a group can grow large enough to challenge Goons?

That's got nothing to do with the space.
As examples: Delve and Fountain are two of the most wealthy regions in the game.
What happens to everyone who lives there, even those who have plenty of time to grow up? They get too big for their panties, get fat off the sov riches, challenge The Imperium (CFC at that time) and get curbstomped back into irrelevance.
Not to be a bit on the :smugdog: side, since I am relatively new to The Imperium, but goddamn, what's it going to take?
That's a serious question.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2015-08-18 00:02:15 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.
How is this an answer? If pilots can't bypass gatecamps because their ship is too big you'll be able to protect hundreds of systems 99% of the time with one gatecamp. .
Nullified, cloaked T3 cruisers.
At least they would be putting 400M into attempting to get SOV then.

How about there actually be space where a group can grow large enough to challenge Goons?


Oh come on now. If you want fights and more people in null, you don't make the entry point T3 cruisers that cause skill loss on death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3uTVTBKb_E

Try doing something fun for a change.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#75 - 2015-08-18 04:14:20 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.


How is this an answer? If pilots can't bypass gatecamps because their ship is too big you'll be able to protect hundreds of systems 99% of the time with one gatecamp.

He're another answer, stop trying to control everything and unblue some people.


You assume people are gatecamping at all. Frankly, even if we were what exactly is wrong about having to fight your way through small gangs of bad pilots to attack a system?

The whole point of this new sov is to get us fighting and trollcepters are the exact opposite of that goal.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#76 - 2015-08-18 04:23:07 UTC
Gatecamps don't qualify as content.

Though they feature heavily in parts of lowsec and fw I think? Wait maybe we need gatecampsov!!

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Arthur Direction
I Accidentally Basilisks
#77 - 2015-08-18 04:24:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

One of the answers is to force the attacker to commit to attacking, remove entosis links from anything smaller than a cruiser.


How is this an answer? If pilots can't bypass gatecamps because their ship is too big you'll be able to protect hundreds of systems 99% of the time with one gatecamp.

He're another answer, stop trying to control everything and unblue some people.


You assume people are gatecamping at all. Frankly, even if we were what exactly is wrong about having to fight your way through small gangs of bad pilots to attack a system?

The whole point of this new sov is to get us fighting and trollcepters are the exact opposite of that goal.



Confirmed no one gatecamps in 0.0 ever...

Just the top kill systems in 0.0 happen to be null/empire gateway systems. But I am sure it is just massive capital fights happening over all that prime real estate... that of course is never camped.

You have had some interesting posts in your lifetime, but this one was pure comedic gold.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#78 - 2015-08-18 04:26:44 UTC
You should see the ec-/torrinos gate

Half the time the badguys camp it, it doesn't even matter whose bubbles they are (I think the pirates usually supply the anchored ones)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#79 - 2015-08-18 04:29:15 UTC
Arthur Direction wrote:



Confirmed no one gatecamps in 0.0 ever...

Just the top kill systems in 0.0 happen to be null/empire gateway systems. But I am sure it is just massive capital fights happening over all that prime real estate... that of course is never camped.

You have had some interesting posts in your lifetime, but this one was pure comedic gold.



I'll let you in on a secret, Highsec organisations camp the ec- gate more than we do.
Arthur Direction
I Accidentally Basilisks
#80 - 2015-08-18 04:45:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Arthur Direction wrote:



Confirmed no one gatecamps in 0.0 ever...

Just the top kill systems in 0.0 happen to be null/empire gateway systems. But I am sure it is just massive capital fights happening over all that prime real estate... that of course is never camped.

You have had some interesting posts in your lifetime, but this one was pure comedic gold.



I'll let you in on a secret, Highsec organisations camp the ec- gate more than we do.



Made no claims as to whom was camping said gates.

You simply made the claim that "people" weren't

And while most would agree that Goons don't quite qualify as "people", you overreached and generalized to make a completely indefensible claim.