These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1241 - 2015-08-28 19:47:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
Jenn aSide wrote:
This whole 'discussion' is a replay of Dominion, people were RABID in their support of Dominion in the beginning, like some (like Harry) are about Aegis. i think this is mainly due to 2 factors, utter dislike of the ills of the old system (notice Harry says he 'came to dislike dominion', means he liked it at 1st) coupled with a deep level of support for the GOALs of Aegis.

The second part is important, because when people believe in a goal, the are more likely to support the process that promises to deliver the goal, even when that process is fatally flawed. Harry isn't alone, it took YEARS for the die hard Dominion lovers to come to their senses and see what we really happening, and by then the bad effects of Dominion were well entrenched in the cluture of the null sec population (ie the Coalitions had been formed, and matured).

History shows that you can't been unrealistic enthusiasm with arguments (that just makes it worse. Those of us who are fathers of now adult women know what I'm about to say: you can tell her how bad the guy is,how there is no future with him, how he's just using her, but doing so just pushes her closer to him. She's going to have to learn on her own and only time can do that....

...Like Dominion did to Harry Twisted

Jane, your response was full of so many false assumptions, pretenses and caricature building, I am curious whom you were actually responding to, because it certainly wasn't me.

In terms of "coming to hate Dominion Sov", I had to learn it coming back from a long break from the game, and fortunately missed its implementation, my phrasing was to indicate I approached it as is, without presupposing what it should be before I learned it (could have phrased it more clearly).

The rest of what you said was more of a justification to quit Eve entirely over providing feedback to a game you do not actually own or develop. In fact it would have fit perfectly in an AA meeting or perhaps a suicide cult ascending to some other place better than the rest of us losers who are stuck in reality.

Because I am realistic about the perils of going back vs just going balls deep so we don't have to suffer the baby step of appeasement does not mean I am giving RABID support. This is a three part implementation of which we are two parts in, I am just saying focus fire on providing productive feedback to the third part vs hemming and hawing on parts 1 and 2.

This has some great feedback and perspective: https://kaskenkronicles.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/burning-providence-lessons-learned-while-fcing-in-a-smaller-alliance/

As does this (but more so when combined with the comments): http://targetcaller.blogspot.com/2015/08/goon-providence-war.html

...there will be plenty of time to cry about the whole thing when it is fully developed, until then, might as well influence what is actively being designed.
Media freak
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1242 - 2015-08-28 22:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Media freak
Harry Saq wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
This whole 'discussion' is a replay of Dominion, people were RABID in their support of Dominion in the beginning, like some (like Harry) are about Aegis. i think this is mainly due to 2 factors, utter dislike of the ills of the old system (notice Harry says he 'came to dislike dominion', means he liked it at 1st) coupled with a deep level of support for the GOALs of Aegis.

The second part is important, because when people believe in a goal, the are more likely to support the process that promises to deliver the goal, even when that process is fatally flawed. Harry isn't alone, it took YEARS for the die hard Dominion lovers to come to their senses and see what we really happening, and by then the bad effects of Dominion were well entrenched in the cluture of the null sec population (ie the Coalitions had been formed, and matured).

History shows that you can't been unrealistic enthusiasm with arguments (that just makes it worse. Those of us who are fathers of now adult women know what I'm about to say: you can tell her how bad the guy is,how there is no future with him, how he's just using her, but doing so just pushes her closer to him. She's going to have to learn on her own and only time can do that....

...Like Dominion did to Harry Twisted

Jane, your response was full of so many false assumptions, pretenses and caricature building, I am curious whom you were actually responding to, because it certainly wasn't me.

In terms of "coming to hate Dominion Sov", I had to learn it coming back from a long break from the game, and fortunately missed its implementation, my phrasing was to indicate I approached it as is, without presupposing what it should be before I learned it (could have phrased it more clearly).

The rest of what you said was more of a justification to quit Eve entirely over providing feedback to a game you do not actually own or develop. In fact it would have fit perfectly in an AA meeting or perhaps a suicide cult ascending to some other place better than the rest of us losers who are stuck in reality.

Because I am realistic about the perils of going back vs just going balls deep so we don't have to suffer the baby step of appeasement does not mean I am giving RABID support. This is a three part implementation of which we are two parts in, I am just saying focus fire on providing productive feedback to the third part vs hemming and hawing on parts 1 and 2.

This has some great feedback and perspective: https://kaskenkronicles.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/burning-providence-lessons-learned-while-fcing-in-a-smaller-alliance/

As does this (but more so when combined with the comments): http://targetcaller.blogspot.com/2015/08/goon-providence-war.html

...there will be plenty of time to cry about the whole thing when it is fully developed, until then, might as well influence what is actively being designed.



the issue is most of us have learned that we aren't going to influence the design. Also there is no timeline for part 3. If you want to look at the long game just think of this as part 2 of dominion sov. The first part was to be able to build up null (putting in stations) and getting people to work together for common goals. now in part 2 they trying to make it so that sov can change hands a little more. part 3 will be in about another decade when the issues and dislike of part 2 is at a peak.

if you need a timeline look at POS how long people have reported issues with them and look at how long CCP took to do anything with them which still isn't in game yet.


Also most of jenn's comment was directed at me I believe as it was I he quoted.
Sovox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1243 - 2015-08-29 01:05:15 UTC
Not enough! The attackers need to commit and imo the Entosis Linking needs its own class of ships, something tanky and kind of slow like a Mastodon that is nullified and ill even say give it a limited cyno jump range, anything that requires attackers and defenders to commit to a fight would be good.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1244 - 2015-08-29 03:26:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


History shows that you can't been unrealistic enthusiasm with arguments (that just makes it worse. Those of us who are fathers of now adult women know what I'm about to say: you can tell her how bad the guy is,how there is no future with him, how he's just using her, but doing so just pushes her closer to him. She's going to have to learn on her own and only time can do that....

...Like Dominion did to Harry Twisted


Is this the newest Hollywood blockbuster? When Harry met DominionBlink

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1245 - 2015-08-29 08:18:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas, if anyone needs to hush it is you, or atleast, perhaps think a bit more first. Coalition size is only one of my points I have been making
I've not seen any other points, but then I'll only read a paragraph or two of "grr" before I simply skip over the rest of the post.

Harry Saq wrote:
You are failing to even attempt to grasp the point, and honestly it isn't about you, or the CFC, 5 to 1 overall size should be as boring as it seems like it would be, just because you are confusing random tactical scenarios with the overall campaign doesn't make your singular experiences more valid. You are experiencing pretty much exactly what you should, it would be like me complaining about being bored triple boxing level II missions. I am free to do it, but because I can do it, and choose to do it, doesn't mean my opinion is more correct than the guy pointing out how dumb it is.
See, here we go again. What you are saying is "it's only boring because of numbers". No, it's boring because it's mining a structure for 30 minutes at a time. It doesn't matter how many (or few) people you have, the mechanic comes down to one person firing a mining laser at a structure for an extended period of time until either he gets stopped or the switch flips.

This is the problem with people like yourself. No matter what we say or what points we make, you keep just going "well it's cos you're in a big group" even though we're repeatedly stated why that's not the case. The fact that several small groups are also pointing out how boring whack-a-mole sov is seems to go right past you too. You're too caught up in your own prejudice to have a reasonable discussion about this, which is why simply ignoring you becomes the best course of action.

Actually Lucas you are wrong, it very much has to do with numbers.
Sure entosis links as a mechanic suck, it has nothing to do with pvp, it is by design a troll mechanic and needs to be seriously overhauled BUT it could create content for you if it weren't for the huge barrier to creating content involving members of the largest coalition in the game - NUMBERS vs numbers.

Simply removing troll ceptors is not going to create content for the large unassailable groups, fear cannot be removed by changing a game mechanic. Only they can do that by reducing their reliance on numbers for protection and showing they can fight for what they have.

Fear of losing is the only thing keeping coalitions together;
Answer 1 question - Can we as an alliance hold our space without the need for thousands of allies
Yes (we can keep it)
No (we should not have it)
Don't know (leave the coalition and find out)

Could a 3,000 man alliance beat a 10,000 man alliance without 3rd party help - In Eve, We will never know.

Large dominating groups are their own worst enemy - by being too afraid to risk anything.
Change all the game mechanics you like, as long as fear of loss is the primary driver, eve will never be more than a huge primarily stagnant gank fest.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1246 - 2015-08-29 08:19:44 UTC
So BL just gave up on fountain stating that chasing interceptors around is no fun as one of the primary reasons.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1247 - 2015-08-29 08:49:53 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Actually Lucas you are wrong, it very much has to do with numbers.
Sure entosis links as a mechanic suck, it has nothing to do with pvp, it is by design a troll mechanic and needs to be seriously overhauled BUT it could create content for you if it weren't for the huge barrier to creating content involving members of the largest coalition in the game - NUMBERS vs numbers.

Simply removing troll ceptors is not going to create content for the large unassailable groups, fear cannot be removed by changing a game mechanic. Only they can do that by reducing their reliance on numbers for protection and showing they can fight for what they have.

Fear of losing is the only thing keeping coalitions together;
Answer 1 question - Can we as an alliance hold our space without the need for thousands of allies
Yes (we can keep it)
No (we should not have it)
Don't know (leave the coalition and find out)

Could a 3,000 man alliance beat a 10,000 man alliance without 3rd party help - In Eve, We will never know.

Large dominating groups are their own worst enemy - by being too afraid to risk anything.
Change all the game mechanics you like, as long as fear of loss is the primary driver, eve will never be more than a huge primarily stagnant gank fest.
Except of course that throughout the whole provi fights I wasn't in a single fleet about 200 members. Just because a group has lots of friends, doesn't mean they are all deployed at the same time. We were outnumbered a few times.

But you're right, whatever mechanic get put in the game, it will eventually come down to numbers. But since there's no way that groups like the Imperium are going to cripple themselves by plitting up just to make whiners happy, CCP need to work on mechanics that are fun for all sizes. Fozziesov isn't fun for any size, since it's mining a structure. It's a prime example of a badly designed mechanic. At first I thought "get rid of trollceptors", but quite honestly I now see that the problem is the core mechanic.

I think that swapping to a raw occupancy model would be the best idea. So something like: ships killed, PI, PvE, mining, etc all done by the same alliance will increase that alliances "points" towards system ownership, with points decreasing constantly. TCUs go in the bin, holding the ihub and the indices increase the number of points gained per activity for your group and decrease their speed of natural decay, Whoever's got the most points at any given time owns the system. This would mean that:
1. Taking a system would require you to fight, rat or mine in a system, not just sneak in a laser and block the gates.
2. Having a coalition involved in that system would actually decrease your ability to take the system as only the individual alliance activity counts. Having your friends blow up the current owners would give you lees targets and them more points.
3. Unused systems would remain easy to take.
4. All styles of play would assist towards the capture of the system, whereas now PvE only assists with increasing indices once a system is taken.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1248 - 2015-08-29 11:07:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So BL just gave up on fountain stating that chasing interceptors around is no fun as one of the primary reasons.
Wow, I've now read all of the stuff coming out of that (of which there is a lot). GJ Fozzie, clearly all is well with this system. Roll

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1249 - 2015-08-29 13:21:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So BL just gave up on fountain stating that chasing interceptors around is no fun as one of the primary reasons.



Fozzie should as a stop gap measure just BAN entosis on frigates. Then with time they think how to solve the issue of mass limit sin wormholes.

But frigate bound entosis are not a good idea for the game.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1250 - 2015-08-29 13:25:43 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Actually Lucas you are wrong, it very much has to do with numbers.
Sure entosis links as a mechanic suck, it has nothing to do with pvp, it is by design a troll mechanic and needs to be seriously overhauled BUT it could create content for you if it weren't for the huge barrier to creating content involving members of the largest coalition in the game - NUMBERS vs numbers.

Simply removing troll ceptors is not going to create content for the large unassailable groups, fear cannot be removed by changing a game mechanic. Only they can do that by reducing their reliance on numbers for protection and showing they can fight for what they have.

Fear of losing is the only thing keeping coalitions together;
Answer 1 question - Can we as an alliance hold our space without the need for thousands of allies
Yes (we can keep it)
No (we should not have it)
Don't know (leave the coalition and find out)

Could a 3,000 man alliance beat a 10,000 man alliance without 3rd party help - In Eve, We will never know.

Large dominating groups are their own worst enemy - by being too afraid to risk anything.
Change all the game mechanics you like, as long as fear of loss is the primary driver, eve will never be more than a huge primarily stagnant gank fest.
Except of course that throughout the whole provi fights I wasn't in a single fleet about 200 members. Just because a group has lots of friends, doesn't mean they are all deployed at the same time. We were outnumbered a few times.

But you're right, whatever mechanic get put in the game, it will eventually come down to numbers. But since there's no way that groups like the Imperium are going to cripple themselves by plitting up just to make whiners happy, CCP need to work on mechanics that are fun for all sizes. Fozziesov isn't fun for any size, since it's mining a structure. It's a prime example of a badly designed mechanic. At first I thought "get rid of trollceptors", but quite honestly I now see that the problem is the core mechanic.

I think that swapping to a raw occupancy model would be the best idea. So something like: ships killed, PI, PvE, mining, etc all done by the same alliance will increase that alliances "points" towards system ownership, with points decreasing constantly. TCUs go in the bin, holding the ihub and the indices increase the number of points gained per activity for your group and decrease their speed of natural decay, Whoever's got the most points at any given time owns the system. This would mean that:
1. Taking a system would require you to fight, rat or mine in a system, not just sneak in a laser and block the gates.
2. Having a coalition involved in that system would actually decrease your ability to take the system as only the individual alliance activity counts. Having your friends blow up the current owners would give you lees targets and them more points.
3. Unused systems would remain easy to take.
4. All styles of play would assist towards the capture of the system, whereas now PvE only assists with increasing indices once a system is taken.

First off, you might want to read what I wrote. I never mentioned anything about being deployed. (unless your referring to my previous post, which still applies)
Yes you were on many occasions outnumbered and weren't able to achieve your objectives, which of course contradicts your whole (public at least) reason for deploying. Provi showed troll ceptors to be somewhat inadequate for the task.

The really sad thing though is that the members of the Imperium have no choice but to go out and find small targets so they can deploy to get any content other than the odd troll ceptor forcing them to stop ratting in Imperium home space for as long as it takes to drive them off, which has led to an inconceivable amount of "whining" from the Imperium.

It seems The Imperium has nothing to offer its members, except a lack of local content.
Insistence that The Imperium must survive and couldn't "cripple" itself is really quite sad, you have to feel sorry for members of the largest group in any game too afraid to actually adapt and play the game.

What do you class as an unused sytem? There are all but empty systems with 4+ ADMs, they are not lived in, they are not occupied by more than 1 guy and his alts a day or 2 a week. Should those systems be easily flipped, or should thousands of nearby allies be able to keep them safe?
All your 4 point suggestion would come to is alliances growing ever fatter - and still not fighting.

Eve content is driven by its players not contrived game mechanics - While such a large % of nulsec choose not to adapt and give up the proven to be bad play styles, nothing Devs do can change anything.
Sorry but you can't have it both ways - If you want content, wars and meaningful, fun times - Coalitions need to at least reduce in size. Every sov holding group needs to be vulnerable or there can be no meaningful content. It just stays, news at one "big guy bashes little guy". While in the rest of the universe, things are stable.

NB; Look at your 4 point proposal, then come back and tell me how many ways a coalition could game occupancy based sov. I can see 4 or 5 ways in which your proposal could be gamed and that was after only having read it once.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1251 - 2015-08-29 13:46:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So BL just gave up on fountain stating that chasing interceptors around is no fun as one of the primary reasons.


BL has never been that committed to holding sovereignty.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1252 - 2015-08-29 13:52:25 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Yes you were on many occasions outnumbered and weren't able to achieve your objectives, which of course contradicts your whole (public at least) reason for deploying. Provi showed troll ceptors to be somewhat inadequate for the task.
What was it you thought was the public reason? Our deployment had nothing to do with trollceptors if that's what you're suggesting. It was about generating content and testing out what we could do with the new system against the only sizable sov holders remaining.

The really sad thing though is that the members of the Imperium have no choice but to go out and find small targets so they can deploy to get any content other than the odd troll ceptor forcing them to stop ratting in Imperium home space for as long as it takes to drive them off, which has led to an inconceivable amount of "whining" from the Imperium.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
It seems The Imperium has nothing to offer its members, except a lack of local content.
Insistence that The Imperium must survive and couldn't "cripple" itself is really quite sad, you have to feel sorry for members of the largest group in any game too afraid to actually adapt and play the game.
It's not the imperium, nullsec has nothing to offer. That's why groups are leaving null, that's why there's so many gaps in the sov and uncontested nodes floating in space. And it's not that woe couldn't cripple ourselves, it's that we won't. Just like if I were to suggest you abandon your playstyle in favour of something you don;t like you'd probably tell me where to stick it.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
What do you class as an unused sytem? There are all but empty systems with 4+ ADMs, they are not lived in, they are not occupied by more than 1 guy and his alts a day or 2 a week. Should those systems be easily flipped, or should thousands of nearby allies be able to keep them safe?
All your 4 point suggestion would come to is alliances growing ever fatter - and still not fighting.
That's obvious isn't it? An unused system is a system nobody uses.

And my suggestion there was how to keep occupancy being the driving force, remove the whack-a-mole sov laser and make coalitions less able to assist each other. The system as it stands supports much fatter alliances and certainly and avoidance of fighting. All fighting that does occur is forced into a small window of vulnerability making it even easier to defend your space.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Eve content is driven by its players not contrived game mechanics - While such a large % of nulsec choose not to adapt and give up the proven to be bad play styles, nothing Devs do can change anything.
At least a part of all game content is mechanics. If those are shockingly boring (see lazoring a structure for an hour) then people will simply not take part wherever they can avoid it.

And lol, we're back to "the only way is for coalitions to dissolve". This will not happen. If CCPs game plan is "wait for coalitions tot optionally split into small groups" then they may as well throw in the towel and stick all their dev teams onto Valkyrie.

Every system can be gamed, for example the current system. The difference is that some systems are entertaining, while others are ship spinning while you fire a mining laser at a structure for an hour. A pure occupancy system would require people to actuality live in a system, not just pop a fleet in, guard heir sov laser then move on. Because that's what we want right? For people to live in the space they own?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1253 - 2015-08-29 15:32:39 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So BL just gave up on fountain stating that chasing interceptors around is no fun as one of the primary reasons.
Wow, I've now read all of the stuff coming out of that (of which there is a lot). GJ Fozzie, clearly all is well with this system. Roll

LOL - You guys are seriously lamenting BL, poster child for non-sov holding harassing nomads leaving their overstretched sov because it is not fun to maintain...yeah...real statement there.

Provi proved toaster ceptors were not a problem, which translates to troll ceptors not being a problem with a defender present. Think of the troll ceptor as a goat herder, herding over stretched alliances back into their core systems, and then you might understand why the toasting ship doesn't matter, it's holding...hell, just being on grid that matters.

BL leaving sov is more about BL than it is about anything else. In fact, them holding and then abandoning sov (certainly the sheer amount they held) during a known and widely broadcasted change in mechanics specifically designed to shrink over stretched empires seems more like a parody, than anything like a convincing example of "bad design".
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1254 - 2015-08-29 15:34:15 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So BL just gave up on fountain stating that chasing interceptors around is no fun as one of the primary reasons.
Wow, I've now read all of the stuff coming out of that (of which there is a lot). GJ Fozzie, clearly all is well with this system. Roll

LOL - You guys are seriously lamenting BL, poster child for non-sov holding harassing nomads leaving their overstretched sov because it is not fun to maintain...yeah...real statement there.

Provi proved toaster ceptors were not a problem, which translates to troll ceptors not being a problem with a defender present. Think of the troll ceptor as a goat herder, herding over stretched alliances back into their core systems, and then you might understand why the toasting ship doesn't matter, it's holding...hell, just being on grid that matters.

BL leaving sov is more about BL than it is about anything else. In fact, them holding and then abandoning sov (certainly the sheer amount they held) during a known and widely broadcasted change in mechanics specifically designed to shrink over stretched empires seems more like a parody, than anything like a convincing example of "bad design".


Provi has been saying openly ceptors suck balls to fight all week.
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1255 - 2015-08-29 15:40:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So BL just gave up on fountain stating that chasing interceptors around is no fun as one of the primary reasons.
Wow, I've now read all of the stuff coming out of that (of which there is a lot). GJ Fozzie, clearly all is well with this system. Roll

LOL - You guys are seriously lamenting BL, poster child for non-sov holding harassing nomads leaving their overstretched sov because it is not fun to maintain...yeah...real statement there.

Provi proved toaster ceptors were not a problem, which translates to troll ceptors not being a problem with a defender present. Think of the troll ceptor as a goat herder, herding over stretched alliances back into their core systems, and then you might understand why the toasting ship doesn't matter, it's holding...hell, just being on grid that matters.

BL leaving sov is more about BL than it is about anything else. In fact, them holding and then abandoning sov (certainly the sheer amount they held) during a known and widely broadcasted change in mechanics specifically designed to shrink over stretched empires seems more like a parody, than anything like a convincing example of "bad design".


Provi has been saying openly ceptors suck balls to fight all week.

They died and were abandoned for better tanked ships when a defender was present to do something about them. Fighting ceptors sucked for both the attacker and defender....hence the reason they were abandoned in defended systems.

Once again:
This has some great feedback and perspective: https://kaskenkronicles.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/burning-providence-lessons-learned-while-fcing-in-a-smaller-alliance/

As does this (but more so when combined with the comments): http://targetcaller.blogspot.com/2015/08/goon-providence-war.html
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1256 - 2015-08-29 16:03:56 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Harry Saq wrote:

They died and were abandoned for better tanked ships when a defender was present to do something about them.


Um, no they weren't. The bulk of the entosising was done by ceptors much to everyones lament.

You are failing to grasp the issue still, its not the capture its the trolling thats the problem. Null is full of evasion style fleets that run when something shows up and has resulted in the vast bulk of ships becoming pointless to fly. Having to chase around ceptors for hours on end is no fun.
Arla Sarain
#1257 - 2015-08-29 16:52:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:

They died and were abandoned for better tanked ships when a defender was present to do something about them.


Um, no they weren't. The bulk of the entosising was done by ceptors much to everyones lament.

You are failing to grasp the issue still, its not the capture its the trolling thats the problem. Null is full of evasion style fleets that run when something shows up and has resulted in the vast bulk of ships becoming pointless to fly. Having to chase around ceptors for hours on end is no fun.

Now force entosis link on BCs and no new corp will try to capture sov. It will become a space coffin and a beacon for pinging 50 dudes to kill off a BC hull whilst the rest of the offenders escape.

In FW we have to chase farmers and it's irritating to do, just as with trollceptors. Sure it's not glamorous, but someone has to do. Though it's not a worthwhile argument to say that somebody should take one for the team to let everyone else have a peaceful state of mind about their sov. Ergo the real problem is that it pays nothing and detracts from the main purpose of sov - to monopolise it.

Maybe SOV should have some passive income. It's hardly cancerous like PoSs seeing as Sov is at a much higher risk of being contested than having your PoS be reinforced in half an hour by a random dude (which wouldn't happen).
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1258 - 2015-08-29 17:07:41 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Grr
Dude, literally nobody stated that trollceptors were good at taking sov. What they are good at is avoiding fights which is why they suck so bad, because they are a way to avoid content. How many times do you need to be told the same thing before you can actually comprehend the issues being presented here? Ballpark figure.

Arla Sarain wrote:
In FW we have to chase farmers and it's irritating to do, just as with trollceptors. Sure it's not glamorous, but someone has to do.
And everyone knows and accepts that FW is broken as ****. Why is it so surprising that taking a broken mechanic and applying it to sov (minus the rewards) makes for a bad system?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kystraz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1259 - 2015-08-29 20:03:21 UTC
Everything would be better if jump freighters had a 5 LY range cap so people that lived in their space and produced locally had a logistical advantage.

CCP please go through with this much needed change, like you originally wanted to. Stop the power projection enabled by 10 LY jump freighters!
Arla Sarain
#1260 - 2015-08-29 21:39:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


Arla Sarain wrote:
In FW we have to chase farmers and it's irritating to do, just as with trollceptors. Sure it's not glamorous, but someone has to do.
And everyone knows and accepts that FW is broken as ****. Why is it so surprising that taking a broken mechanic and applying it to sov (minus the rewards) makes for a bad system?

Read further.