These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Galatea] First batch of sov capture iterations

First post First post
Author
Warmeister
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#261 - 2015-08-19 08:32:48 UTC
Tish Magev wrote:
Warmeister wrote:
Tish Magev wrote:

Nullsec is pretty much completely devoid of content, no one is going to invade anyone because who wants to play Sov mining, and less and less alliances are even bothering to defend space when some randomer decides to toss it, because again sov just isn't worth the ballache of this mechanic.


yeah, and before fozziesov there were sov wars left right and center, right? Roll



More than there is or will be now yeah.

No ones saying nullsec wasn't stale, but if you think this is the solution to reinvigorate it then you're a bit of an idiot.

if you think there were more wars before you are delusional. the last major war ended almost 2 years ago.

it ended with leadership of those involved being completely burnt out and woving not to have another war ever again until sov is fixed. since then only some local conflicts happened, which still continue to happen after fozziesov.

oh i would call your skirmish with goons a sov war, if you didn't call it goodfites yourself
Irenia Tsurpalen
Special Assault Unit
Triumvirate.
#262 - 2015-08-19 08:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Irenia Tsurpalen
Tish Magev wrote:


I can't believe that ANY null sec dwelling player/corp/alliance/coalition likes FozzieSov, or finds it generates content in anyway, in fact I'm pretty sure they don't.

Yo Tish, I’m really happy for you, Imma let you finish but I had fun with Fozzy sov last two or so weeks!

But since the local enemy is defeated you might be right: There will be not much content, at least not that ~local conflict between small entities~ kind of content Fozzy sov was advertised with. :)
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#263 - 2015-08-19 08:38:31 UTC
Keep the mass penalty please.
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2015-08-19 08:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Warmeister wrote:
it ended with leadership of those involved being completely burnt out and woving not to have another war ever again until sov is fixed

Exactly the same leadership, now rejuvenated, said - I quote - "F*CK F*ZZIE"
Edit: this is not my opinion and I may or may not agree with it.
5pitf1re
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#265 - 2015-08-19 08:40:08 UTC
I like how the most vocal people defending fozziesov in this thread are either high and lowsec people not holding a single sov system and on a couple of occasions the uninformed PL guy who didn't quite realize that his alliance has never been a classical sov holding alliance and currently holds exactly 1 sov system.

Please, if you don't hold sov and/or live in sov space, just shut up.

What's sad is that no one actually really read and tried to understand what Reagalan wrote in this two posts. It is really easy to fallback to the good old grr gons mentality instead of trying to think for yourselves. Basically you are F1 monkeys but in terms of thinking, congratulations to achieving sheep like cognitive heights.

To the Shadow Cartel guy in this thread, if I were you, I wouldn't cry about blobbing.
Warmeister
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#266 - 2015-08-19 08:52:37 UTC
5pitf1re wrote:

What's sad is that no one actually really read and tried to understand what Reagalan wrote in this two posts. It is really easy to fallback to the good old grr gons mentality instead of trying to think for yourselves. Basically you are F1 monkeys but in terms of thinking, congratulations to achieving sheep like cognitive heights.
.

read the post, all i saw there was "wah, wah, we can't just be F1 monkeys anymore and have to undock"
5pitf1re
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#267 - 2015-08-19 08:54:13 UTC  |  Edited by: 5pitf1re
Warmeister wrote:
5pitf1re wrote:

What's sad is that no one actually really read and tried to understand what Reagalan wrote in this two posts. It is really easy to fallback to the good old grr gons mentality instead of trying to think for yourselves. Basically you are F1 monkeys but in terms of thinking, congratulations to achieving sheep like cognitive heights.
.

read the post, all i saw there was "wah, wah, we can't just be F1 monkeys anymore and have to undock"


Oh hello uninformed PL poster, I was just talking about you!
Warmeister
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#268 - 2015-08-19 08:56:36 UTC
5pitf1re wrote:
Warmeister wrote:
5pitf1re wrote:

What's sad is that no one actually really read and tried to understand what Reagalan wrote in this two posts. It is really easy to fallback to the good old grr gons mentality instead of trying to think for yourselves. Basically you are F1 monkeys but in terms of thinking, congratulations to achieving sheep like cognitive heights.
.

read the post, all i saw there was "wah, wah, we can't just be F1 monkeys anymore and have to undock"


Oh hello uninformed PL poster. I was just talking about you!

i know u were, i just decided not to comment on your uninformed opinion
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#269 - 2015-08-19 09:00:39 UTC
5pitf1re wrote:
I like how the most vocal people defending fozziesov in this thread are either high and lowsec people not holding a single sov system and on a couple of occasions the uninformed PL guy who didn't quite realize that his alliance has never been a classical sov holding alliance and currently holds exactly 1 sov system..


And most railing on it are all leaning hard to the idea of making harassment impossible, to re-enable the hiding behind passive defenses of massive bubbles and intel networks as well as wanting an instant, guaranteed kill when they are on grid.

I posit that maybe a happy medium is best for all, but the trouble is you all can't see past your own selfish agendas.
Sjugar02
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#270 - 2015-08-19 09:03:12 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
5pitf1re wrote:
Warmeister wrote:
5pitf1re wrote:

What's sad is that no one actually really read and tried to understand what Reagalan wrote in this two posts. It is really easy to fallback to the good old grr gons mentality instead of trying to think for yourselves. Basically you are F1 monkeys but in terms of thinking, congratulations to achieving sheep like cognitive heights.
.

read the post, all i saw there was "wah, wah, we can't just be F1 monkeys anymore and have to undock"


Oh hello uninformed PL poster. I was just talking about you!

i know u were, i just decided not to comment on your uninformed opinion


Would you like to explain to the uninformed masses why PL doesn't have or want sov and how this relates to you defending the new sov system?
Arla Sarain
#271 - 2015-08-19 09:26:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We are also making an adjustment to the penalties on the Entosis Link module itself. The mass penalty is being replaced with a "speed limit" to 4000m/s. This means that the normal subwarp engines of a ship with an Entosis Link fitted will never accelerate it past 4000m/s. This limit was chosen to have the smallest possible impact on ships fit for engagement and combat while having a larger impact on the escapability of evasion fits than the mass penalty.

Thanks everyone, and good hunting!

Make it increase sig radius too.

W8, what if the entosis link was a deployable instead, with some volume to it, like 60m3?

Let the trollceptors fly about. They place the link at whatever range, and it just gets sniped if they don't defend it. Eventually it will just churn out of their possession, they can't carry that many.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#272 - 2015-08-19 09:28:56 UTC
how long till you ppl at CCP will finally understand that taking away our killmails for this structures was a BAD thing? you know killmails? the ones "we all love" ? hello?

and about trollceptors....how can you guys not get it even now it's beyond me ...
Peacenlove
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#273 - 2015-08-19 09:34:18 UTC
MASSADEATH wrote:
Reagalan wrote:
Won't do jack **** to a system that is fundamentally and critically flawed and unsalvageable.

Until you get off of this "small gang" and "local conflict" soapbox the decline of Eve will continue. We didn't sign up for small gang impermanent bullshit and we detest your attempts to force this playstyle upon us.



More goon BLOB ...

just as we start actually taking CFC systems... we have 3 under control now
Y-C3EQ
7RM-N0
GA-P6C

the biggest advantage we have SPEED is taken away.... so they can just roll BLOBS onto the grid. BLOB BLOB BLOB.... back to n+1 fighting


Instead of MOA whining ...we are going to ADAPT (like the big blocs should do) and try our best.


IMO however this is a mistake , only a few weeks of this system has been in place and its already being changed to suit the power bloc whiners.


lol, you havent taken those systems, the tcu is literally meaningless in the new sov system. You have the one station inf reeprot but in every other system it is a goonswarm ihub. AKA, they own the system. TCU is justa flag actualy ownership is station and ihub
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike
Northern Coalition.
#274 - 2015-08-19 09:34:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Emmy Mnemonic
Poision Kevin wrote:
The fact that you still ***** about "Troll Ceptors" when you can easily kill those now with cruiser hulls and links in system is entertaining. 4km/s instead of 8km/s is a HUGE step. Trolling factor is still ****, surely, but this reduces amount of nodes you have to keep track of as well as speed limit while the entosis link is FITTED (To be seen if it matters offline/online however).

It's not what you might have wanted, but god damn is it in the right direction. I'm sure I speak for most people when I say "Bet you didn't expect that?".

Baby steps... baby steps.


Sure are baby-steps, but better than baby-crawl! And I agree - catching a 4000 m/s ceptor should be no real problem, even without booster in system. Sov-trolling just got harder, but it is still possible. Lets try this a couple of weeks and see how it plays out!

There is probably a reason to the baby-steps; they have a 6 week release cycle/sprints, not much time to do any major redesigns, especially given their vacation period too. In all, these adaptations are probably what is possible to cram into their sprint, while still having some quality and low enough risk when they release Galatea. And as Fozzie sais, they will continue iterating, and I would guess there will be larger adaptations implemented and release in the release after Galatea, as he hints about.

But good that CCP are listening to the feedback!

I just wish that the community could have been a bit more mature in general, we have seen some really bad examples of "net hate" the last couple of weeks, our community is so immature...grown men acting like kids, c'mon guys, behave! We (i.e. the EVE community) are worse than my teenager kids sometimes!

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#275 - 2015-08-19 09:34:35 UTC
4k isn't enough. Just change the fitting requirements so it's a BC and above sized module or cruiser but with severe limitations. I don't get why you've balanced the game to such an extent that when combat finally happens it's between two non-committal enemies who can run away from each other with ease. This doesn't make people fight. Bring back the bloody close range brawls and ditch this idiot kiting meta.
Moneta Curran
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2015-08-19 09:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Moneta Curran
I would vote in favour of making entosis links incompatible with nullified hulls. You could then do away with all these hamfisted mass/speed penalties that beggar suspension of disbelief.

Making entosis links incompatible with nullified hulls would enable sov holders to actually defend their borders and allow for some interesting bubble tactics.. bubbles being a defining characteristic of null sec gameplay in the first place. It would force an attacker to actually risk his ship.

I know the general idea was to not place any restrictions on whatever hull you could pick to fit the entosis links to, but I feel there would be plenty of choice left after this change.
Mac Chicovski
Capts Deranged Cavaliers
#277 - 2015-08-19 09:42:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mac Chicovski
CCP Fozzie wrote:

__capture time stuff__

Good start.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

We are also making an adjustment to the penalties on the Entosis Link module itself. The mass penalty is being replaced with a "speed limit" to 4000m/s. This means that the normal subwarp engines of a ship with an Entosis Link fitted will never accelerate it past 4000m/s. This limit was chosen to have the smallest possible impact on ships fit for engagement and combat while having a larger impact on the escapability of evasion fits than the mass penalty.


This is still dumb as a stump. An absolute limit means that they'll just change which ship and fittings they use, whereas a percentage decrease in speed would mean that they can't just change the fittings and make it more offensively viable.

Indeed, the whole idea ignores all the many pieces of reasonable critique about the real problems with trollcepters and defending against them by adding some new, one-off mechanic that requires you to have a 6km/s+ overheated ship, combat scanners, and the ability to kill the ship before they kill you (which they can, since they no longer have to fit for 6k, they can fit any ship that will make 4k and use the rest offensively, but the defender still has to fit for 6k+).

I guess this is just another 'fozz you' to the myriad of people who have submitted thoughtful criticism, and who actually play this part of the game.
yogizh
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#278 - 2015-08-19 09:49:25 UTC
Will you also create a ship that can track a ceptor moving at 4000 m/s ?
Cause that was your policy right ? Having a counter to everything ?

This change solves nothing.
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike
Northern Coalition.
#279 - 2015-08-19 09:53:44 UTC
yogizh wrote:
Will you also create a ship that can track a ceptor moving at 4000 m/s ?
Cause that was your policy right ? Having a counter to everything ?

This change solves nothing.


Ever heard of precision missiles and nano-ships....? A nano-fitted Scythe Fleet Issue with Rapid Lights will easily kill a 4000 m/s trollceptor, better with speed-booster on grid, but also without it. There are more examples.

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

yogizh
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#280 - 2015-08-19 09:58:30 UTC
Nevil Kincade wrote:
NO FOZZY !

NO ! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

:ranting:



Maybe try to challenge an enemy that is not 500 times the size of your little mission running alliance.