These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Please reduce the number of SOV timers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nou Mene
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#121 - 2016-03-18 19:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nou Mene
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
Outer Path
Seraphim Division
#122 - 2016-03-18 19:47:38 UTC
Why can't I have my cake and eat it too! I'm entitled! I deserve everything!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#123 - 2016-03-18 19:48:33 UTC
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
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#124 - 2016-03-18 19:49:50 UTC
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
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#125 - 2016-03-18 20:00:51 UTC
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
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#126 - 2016-03-18 20:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nou Mene
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
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#127 - 2016-03-18 20:20:37 UTC
classic lucas kell posting lies, misinformation and/or strawmen to make his nullbabby life as easy as possible
CBBOMBERMAN
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2016-03-18 20:30:55 UTC
This is solved very easily.
Cut down on systems you don't use/have no presence.
Done.
No more headaches, no more timers. Lol
Front lines are meant to be under constant attack.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#129 - 2016-03-18 20:42:38 UTC
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
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#130 - 2016-03-18 21:01:21 UTC
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
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#131 - 2016-03-18 21:14:20 UTC
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
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#132 - 2016-03-18 21:16:22 UTC
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
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#133 - 2016-03-18 21:21:13 UTC
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
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#134 - 2016-03-18 21:25:50 UTC
"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
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#135 - 2016-03-18 21:30:10 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
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
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2016-03-18 22:23:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberian Deci
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 the 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
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#137 - 2016-03-18 22:56:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
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.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#138 - 2016-03-18 23:05:45 UTC
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
Zerious Fricken Biziness
#139 - 2016-03-18 23:07:37 UTC
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
#140 - 2016-03-18 23:31:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
just a bunch of nobodies crying that they couldn't defeat their enemies


/thread

"Shiny.  Lets be bad guys." -Jayne Cobb