These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1081 - 2015-06-03 14:36:16 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
For the millionth time: there is no mechanic short of GM fiat that will let a small casual group hold or gain sov in the face of determined opposition from a large, well organised one. Any complaints about a sov system based on that objection are a waste of time.

All that fozzie sov and the travel changes can do is increase the required amount of determination steeply with distance.

The sheer fact that those 600+ systems have been abandoned should be an indicator as to how much determination the existing powers have to attack them.

You can call it "punchbagging" or you can call it regular PvP content, whichever makes you the more happy. But in the hundreds of systems it is now possible for new powers to establish themselves wheras a year ago it was unthinkable.

If you're not angling for CCP to straight up give you sov and grant you mechanical privileges towards keeping it, then let's hear your suggestions for evenly applied sov mechanics that magically let the Mike And Dave Alliance thrive 6 jumps from YA0.

One thing stands out far beyond anything - 18hrs of vulnerability. Give new alliances a bit of a buffer from the constant threat associated with new sov. (especially once entosis rule goes live)

Next would be Strategic index levels in existing but unused sov - Remove it. Strategic indexes should be earned by activity not time held. Making the "strategic index" stand for something other than paying a sov bill for years would open up a lot of unused sov to being taken over.

Capital systems, a damn good idea and if they could be activated at the time of the TCU coming online, instead of "a few days later" it could help new groups (and existing ones looking to branch out). To reduce the risk of the mechanic being 'gamed" by groups using it for staging purposes, it could incorporate penalties applied to the system it was moved from. For example, if your "capital system" has maxed indexes and you move it to a newly taken system, the system it came from could incur an index reduction penalty, making it vulnerable to attack.

Capture the node, should be restricted to the system at risk or at most, systems the sov holders have an interest in. It should not mean having to win a mini game in the surrounding 6 to 10 systems that the alliance may not even have a stake in.
With a quick glance at the sov map recently I found 12 constellations where multiple alliances hold sov - They are not all friends.
So when one comes under threat, they are facing having to fight the threat as well as the uneasy neighbours, who wouldn't need to attack but could certainly change the outcome of a fight for sov (capture the node) in the neighbouring system. If nothing else, they could easily extend the defenders vulnerability window by simply capturing a few nodes.


As many of the currently available (and potentially available - unused) systems are surrounded by well entrenched large groups, the door in is very narrow. Yes some possibly could do it hard and take those systems but not with all the builtin barriers we will soon see in force. Why is it do you think that so many groups have been jostling for space prior to the release of Fozziesov?


I don't want an "easy as you go" sov system, just one that balances out the playing field a little.
A few minor changes and Fozzisov could well be the right balance.


Those are viable comments. Write them up into a proper proposal, and by that I mean work really hard at addressing any potential points of abuse, and rattle the cages of a few CSMs once you've posted it up.

protip: making comments like "all CSMs are useless nullbear goon stooges" will not motivate them to help you.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#1082 - 2015-06-03 15:36:32 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
One thing stands out far beyond anything - 18hrs of vulnerability. Give new alliances a bit of a buffer from the constant threat associated with new sov. (especially once entosis rule goes live)


Fair. I suggested a way for a group to prime the index of a system before taking it, but it didn't gain any traction.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Next would be Strategic index levels in existing but unused sov - Remove it. Strategic indexes should be earned by activity not time held. Making the "strategic index" stand for something other than paying a sov bill for years would open up a lot of unused sov to being taken over.

[...]

A few minor changes and Fozzisov could well be the right balance.


Good post.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#1083 - 2015-06-03 21:27:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Malcanis wrote:

Capture the node, should be restricted to the system at risk or at most, systems the sov holders have an interest in. It should not mean having to win a mini game in the surrounding 6 to 10 systems that the alliance may not even have a stake in.

As far as I can tell, the purpose of this mechanic is to spread out server load. CCP can insure that every system in a given constellation is on a different node, and they can do this each and every time TQ is brought up, irrelevant of any possible capture events. With this "spread out" mechanic, there should be far less tidi and lag than if everyone was in the same system.

Maybe a compromise would be to limit the capture mechanic to, say, 5 systems. The game looks for connecting systems that the defender owns and are in the same constellation. If those don't exist, the game goes for systems that are unclaimed. Failing that, it just uses the closest systems.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
The Newface
Doomheim
#1084 - 2015-06-04 13:49:42 UTC
From an IT professional: The more special rules/custom conditions you have to add to a function the worse it generally behave. It’s harder to maintain and predict. That’s why KIS(s) is an acronym.

It worries me that this new system require so many small additional layer on it already just to make it “work”
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1085 - 2015-06-04 19:17:20 UTC
Well, despite some complaints about new overview icons in dev blog, numbers in http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility seems to have stayed at pre-launch levels, average of 23K for a week seems to be The Norm now, and I count stopping the bleed a victory for CCP (yes I know numbers are now much worse than even 6 months ago).

Or then maybe EvE has 20K core fans who play it no matter what.
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#1086 - 2015-06-05 01:04:34 UTC
0bama Barack Hussein wrote:

Or then maybe EvE has 20K core fans who play it no matter what.


Exactly this... for now

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1087 - 2015-06-05 02:53:57 UTC
0bama Barack Hussein wrote:
Well, despite some complaints about new overview icons in dev blog, numbers in http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility seems to have stayed at pre-launch levels, average of 23K for a week seems to be The Norm now, and I count stopping the bleed a victory for CCP (yes I know numbers are now much worse than even 6 months ago).

Or then maybe EvE has 20K core fans who play it no matter what.

I don't think the new icons will see many quit.
Once summer is over numbers should creep up a little, time will tell.

It may see some not able play because of medical conditions. Those with eyesight issues are now at an even greater disadvantage, unless they can afford a $600 to $1,000 4k or 5k monitor like the ones these icons were specifically designed for.

It is so far encouraging some to just not log in until they are fixed (could be a long wait.)

The biggest issue with, in space icons, crappy UI icons and the new map, is the release timetable and a producer who is happy to let devs launch unfinished work just so the release schedule can be maintained..


With the current trend of development focused on highend hardware, the rest of us will have to make do. Maybe we need to have multiple icons sets to suit different hardware specs. Pick your resolution and the icon set matches it as closely as possible.
Designing new things on state of art hardware is good but it needs to be tested and proven on what the average player uses. What looks great on highend state of art hardware can be absolute crap on lower spec'd machines.

What was designed for highend 4k, 5k hardware will never appear properly with lower resolutions, no matter how much you scale it. Currently, scaling from 90% to 125% (aside from losing up to 1/3rd of my screen to the overview) only makes the blurry lines bigger, not clearer. At first glance, destroyers just look like blurry frigates, same for cruisers and battle cruisers. (oh and sort by size - doesn't work as it used to)

Hint for our producer, CCP Giggles - If it ain't broke, don't fix it.. If it ain't finished, don't release it.
It would be much better to get a message from CCP saying, "there will be no new release this cycle as we want to ensure everything is right". Instead of hundreds of pages of posts on the forums from disappointed customers.

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.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1088 - 2015-06-05 04:32:57 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
For the millionth time: there is no mechanic short of GM fiat that will let a small casual group hold or gain sov in the face of determined opposition from a large, well organised one. Any complaints about a sov system based on that objection are a waste of time.

All that fozzie sov and the travel changes can do is increase the required amount of determination steeply with distance.

The sheer fact that those 600+ systems have been abandoned should be an indicator as to how much determination the existing powers have to attack them.

You can call it "punchbagging" or you can call it regular PvP content, whichever makes you the more happy. But in the hundreds of systems it is now possible for new powers to establish themselves wheras a year ago it was unthinkable.

If you're not angling for CCP to straight up give you sov and grant you mechanical privileges towards keeping it, then let's hear your suggestions for evenly applied sov mechanics that magically let the Mike And Dave Alliance thrive 6 jumps from YA0.

One thing stands out far beyond anything - 18hrs of vulnerability. Give new alliances a bit of a buffer from the constant threat associated with new sov. (especially once entosis rule goes live)

Next would be Strategic index levels in existing but unused sov - Remove it. Strategic indexes should be earned by activity not time held. Making the "strategic index" stand for something other than paying a sov bill for years would open up a lot of unused sov to being taken over.

Capital systems, a damn good idea and if they could be activated at the time of the TCU coming online, instead of "a few days later" it could help new groups (and existing ones looking to branch out). To reduce the risk of the mechanic being 'gamed" by groups using it for staging purposes, it could incorporate penalties applied to the system it was moved from. For example, if your "capital system" has maxed indexes and you move it to a newly taken system, the system it came from could incur an index reduction penalty, making it vulnerable to attack.

Capture the node, should be restricted to the system at risk or at most, systems the sov holders have an interest in. It should not mean having to win a mini game in the surrounding 6 to 10 systems that the alliance may not even have a stake in.
With a quick glance at the sov map recently I found 12 constellations where multiple alliances hold sov - They are not all friends.
So when one comes under threat, they are facing having to fight the threat as well as the uneasy neighbours, who wouldn't need to attack but could certainly change the outcome of a fight for sov (capture the node) in the neighbouring system. If nothing else, they could easily extend the defenders vulnerability window by simply capturing a few nodes.


As many of the currently available (and potentially available - unused) systems are surrounded by well entrenched large groups, the door in is very narrow. Yes some possibly could do it hard and take those systems but not with all the builtin barriers we will soon see in force. Why is it do you think that so many groups have been jostling for space prior to the release of Fozziesov?


I don't want an "easy as you go" sov system, just one that balances out the playing field a little.
A few minor changes and Fozzisov could well be the right balance.


Those are viable comments. Write them up into a proper proposal, and by that I mean work really hard at addressing any potential points of abuse, and rattle the cages of a few CSMs once you've posted it up.

protip: making comments like "all CSMs are useless nullbear goon stooges" will not motivate them to help you.

There are several ways in which those changes could be abused but i think any "abuse" would benefit both large and small, new and old groups. Any proposed change has the potential to be abused but as long as it can be used by everyone for similar results, that is ok.
If doing A + B and being the best at it is all it takes to win - It takes a lot of the fun out of winning. Room for ingenuity is important.

It can't hurt to try "rattling some cages" Twisted

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.
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1089 - 2015-06-05 09:46:46 UTC  |  Edited by: 0bama Barack Hussein
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I don't think the new icons will see many quit.
Once summer is over numbers should creep up a little, time will tell.

It may see some not able play because of medical conditions. Those with eyesight issues are now at an even greater disadvantage, unless they can afford a $600 to $1,000 4k or 5k monitor like the ones these icons were specifically designed for.

It is so far encouraging some to just not log in until they are fixed (could be a long wait.)


Naturally, and then there are some who seems to have not been able even to get new patch downloaded (seems to especially be Win 8 problem), they will probably join us later mostly.

On the other hand there is / were these fears that new sov system will turn numbers down again later, after people get bored at it after few first months, trying to defend once again their little corner from hoards of interceptors that huge block can send every day for "fights" and "content".

I am willing to bet that people who join EvE (again) later in couple/few months (for reasons mentioned above), and people who quit it because of new changes (to sov, icons and so on), amounts into pretty much same amount of people (predicting through forums complaints about those).

So yes I dont see big changes on daily averages online now for either direction at near future.



From hardware requirements, yes I am now considering moving my EvE from my old laptop to new desktop, too bad I can´t then do anymore some stuff I enjoyed while playing EvE, like playing other space-/football manager- game(s) or watch TV. Those were my reason to log for a play of EvE even when "semi-afk" (so logging numbers would drop from my part).

I totally understand pain of those who cant afford new hardware to continue playing EvE decently, but honestly, EvE cant forever stay 10 years behind other new (space) games (like ED), they will need to keep up with technology to keep up with "competition" (totally different kind of games, but players adjust also, not all in EvE are hardcore empire builders, role players or like strategic PvP´s).

But the rest you wrote I agree very much actually.

-0bama



EDIT: Seems my installation of EvE to my desktop might be delayed if complaining about new patch filling up HD space while fragmenting it is an issue. 18 GB´s of cache just from couple days of play? Jeeeezuz!
I guess I dont then play or stay at chats Big smile
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1090 - 2015-06-05 19:21:58 UTC
You might want to have a look at how entosis links work before you go on about interceptors.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1091 - 2015-06-06 02:02:40 UTC
0bama Barack Hussein wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I don't think the new icons will see many quit.
Once summer is over numbers should creep up a little, time will tell.

It may see some not able play because of medical conditions. Those with eyesight issues are now at an even greater disadvantage, unless they can afford a $600 to $1,000 4k or 5k monitor like the ones these icons were specifically designed for.

It is so far encouraging some to just not log in until they are fixed (could be a long wait.)


Naturally, and then there are some who seems to have not been able even to get new patch downloaded (seems to especially be Win 8 problem), they will probably join us later mostly.

On the other hand there is / were these fears that new sov system will turn numbers down again later, after people get bored at it after few first months, trying to defend once again their little corner from hoards of interceptors that huge block can send every day for "fights" and "content".

I am willing to bet that people who join EvE (again) later in couple/few months (for reasons mentioned above), and people who quit it because of new changes (to sov, icons and so on), amounts into pretty much same amount of people (predicting through forums complaints about those).

So yes I dont see big changes on daily averages online now for either direction at near future.



From hardware requirements, yes I am now considering moving my EvE from my old laptop to new desktop, too bad I can´t then do anymore some stuff I enjoyed while playing EvE, like playing other space-/football manager- game(s) or watch TV. Those were my reason to log for a play of EvE even when "semi-afk" (so logging numbers would drop from my part).

I totally understand pain of those who cant afford new hardware to continue playing EvE decently, but honestly, EvE cant forever stay 10 years behind other new (space) games (like ED), they will need to keep up with technology to keep up with "competition" (totally different kind of games, but players adjust also, not all in EvE are hardcore empire builders, role players or like strategic PvP´s).

But the rest you wrote I agree very much actually.

-0bama


EDIT: Seems my installation of EvE to my desktop might be delayed if complaining about new patch filling up HD space while fragmenting it is an issue. 18 GB´s of cache just from couple days of play? Jeeeezuz!
I guess I dont then play or stay at chats Big smile

Interceptor hoards aren't likely to be an issue - Fitting requirements, cap use and fuel will inhibit all but the most determined and they would likely need a cloaky hauler to keep fuel up to them.

Issues with downloading the new patch and Cache size blowouts - Try clearing your cache from the launcher, then restart it. This worked for me, my cache went from just over 20GB back to 12.5GB and the patch installed without complaint.
If it doesn't work, submit a ticket.

Eve entering the 21st century is a good idea, yes CCP do need to keep up with the next guy (other games) as far as "pretty" and "modern" goes but when pretty and modern conflict with game play, they need to find balance. Designing icons specifically so they look good in highend hardware (they do "look" great on my friends 4K monitor) is not good balance, unless everyone has access to that hardware.
When aesthetics become more important than functionality, aesthetics become a problem.

There have been several good suggestions as to how icons could be managed.
My favorite (so far) is allowing players to select from a pool of icons and allocate them as desired. This would mean CCP maintaining a variety of icon sets but would also allow players to choose icons that are; 1, suitable for their hardware; 2, easily identifiable to suit their individual or groups needs; 3, able to be customized, with color.

Icons sets, like ship fittings could be shared with friends; and enemies if your feeling generous, lol.
A fleet of 1,000 players could each have different icons for different things and still work well together, as long as each player knows what his icons represent.
Icons only need to make things easily identifiable for the individual. They don't need to represent the same thing for everyone.

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.
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1092 - 2015-06-06 19:35:06 UTC  |  Edited by: 0bama Barack Hussein
Sgt Ocker wrote:




Issues with downloading the new patch and Cache size blowouts - Try clearing your cache from the launcher, then restart it. This worked for me, my cache went from just over 20GB back to 12.5GB and the patch installed without complaint.
If it doesn't work, submit a ticket.


Thank you.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Eve entering the 21st century is a good idea, yes CCP do need to keep up with the next guy (other games) as far as "pretty" and "modern" goes but when pretty and modern conflict with game play, they need to find balance. Designing icons specifically so they look good in highend hardware (they do "look" great on my friends 4K monitor) is not good balance, unless everyone has access to that hardware.
When aesthetics become more important than functionality, aesthetics become a problem.

There have been several good suggestions as to how icons could be managed.
My favorite (so far) is allowing players to select from a pool of icons and allocate them as desired. This would mean CCP maintaining a variety of icon sets but would also allow players to choose icons that are; 1, suitable for their hardware; 2, easily identifiable to suit their individual or groups needs; 3, able to be customized, with color.



Can´t we anymore save our overview settings? More than one?

Would it not be pretty much the same for CCP to have us 2 different overview backgrounds to download from, new and the old?

Think just that would do for a starters, satisfy both who liked old system, and those who like new.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1093 - 2015-06-06 23:08:14 UTC
0bama Barack Hussein wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:




Issues with downloading the new patch and Cache size blowouts - Try clearing your cache from the launcher, then restart it. This worked for me, my cache went from just over 20GB back to 12.5GB and the patch installed without complaint.
If it doesn't work, submit a ticket.


Thank you.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Eve entering the 21st century is a good idea, yes CCP do need to keep up with the next guy (other games) as far as "pretty" and "modern" goes but when pretty and modern conflict with game play, they need to find balance. Designing icons specifically so they look good in highend hardware (they do "look" great on my friends 4K monitor) is not good balance, unless everyone has access to that hardware.
When aesthetics become more important than functionality, aesthetics become a problem.

There have been several good suggestions as to how icons could be managed.
My favorite (so far) is allowing players to select from a pool of icons and allocate them as desired. This would mean CCP maintaining a variety of icon sets but would also allow players to choose icons that are; 1, suitable for their hardware; 2, easily identifiable to suit their individual or groups needs; 3, able to be customized, with color.



Can´t we anymore save our overview settings? More than one?

Would it not be pretty much the same for CCP to have us 2 different overview backgrounds to download from, new and the old?

Think just that would do for a starters, satisfy both who liked old system, and those who like new.

Basically it could work that way, the difference is the icons appear in space as well so you would need to have direct access to them. Possibly, it could be managed with the DoD caching system, you only download what you need.
So CCP could in theory offer multiple sets of icons and players would select the ones they wish to use and save them in a similar way to how overviews settings are.

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.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1094 - 2015-06-06 23:13:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Sgt Ocker wrote:
... Interceptor hoards aren't likely to be an issue - ...
Swarms of Stabbers is a possibility

[Stabber, MagicWand]
Damage Control II
Tracking Enhancer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Power Diagnostic System II

EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 200

Entosis Link I
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
Small Plasma Smartbomb I

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I

Hornet EC-300 x5
Kill drones, bombs, tackle and keep away from the rest.
(Very fast and rough fit, so don't get excited about the details. The general idea is that is about 40M for a fast T1 cruiser to go and mess with your structures)

The other option is using Steal Recons and scouts, when defenders form up, then cycle down the magic wand and cloak up.

Say you use three ships per system (TCU, station and ihub at the same time)
Hit 30 systems and that is a fleet of 90 + scouts. Very possible.
Take a mobile depot and a cloak then just cycle down and AFK when defenders come along.

So that is 1.2 billion and 90+ people to RF most of a region and drive people crazy.

One carrier worth .... far, far less risk than supers and capitals now.
Far, far more griefing fun and annoying defenders.

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.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1095 - 2015-06-06 23:42:22 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
... Interceptor hoards aren't likely to be an issue - ...
Swarms of Stabbers is a possibility

[Stabber, MagicWand]
Damage Control II
Tracking Enhancer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Power Diagnostic System II

EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 200

Entosis Link I
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot M
Small Plasma Smartbomb I

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I

Hornet EC-300 x5
Kill drones, bombs, tackle and keep away from the rest.
(Very fast and rough fit, so don't get excited about the details. The general idea is that is about 40M for a fast T1 cruiser to go and mess with your structures)

The other option is using Steal Recons and scouts, when defenders form up, then cycle down the magic wand and cloak up.

Yeah I had played around with a few different fits too.
Biggest drawback for anything not nullified is bubbles. The fitting trade off to make the Entosis link viable are such your fleet will die to the first gate camp it happens to land in.
Recons I believe are a viable option, Blops them in, get job done Blops out. Defenders form up, as you said, disengage and go cloak up.

As for fights over sov. It is going to be tricky.
If a fleet turns up to entosis your stuff and you can't fight them off, just stay docked, wait till they leave, then undock your entosis links and reverse what they did.
I can't see many attacking groups willing to just sit around for 4 or 5 hours hoping the defenders will undock once the system has been RF'd. If they do, you just call in as many friends as you can to drive them off.

Gangs of entosis users without fleet support hitting defended systems, are going to die pretty fast. Hit systems and get blueballed by defenders enough, people will stop forming up. No-one wants to form up to maybe get a fight, if the defenders undock. People will soon get tired of turning up to fleets where the only ones to do anything are 2 or 3 entosis fit ships.

People thought grinding structures for hours was tedious and boring, wait till your in fleet in a system for 4 or 5 hours where only 2 or 3 members of the fleet get to do anything while the remainder orbit at range, just in case.

If eve players are half as smart as they so far seem, sov wars is likely to become very boring.

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.
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1096 - 2015-06-07 00:49:38 UTC
Let me be short the game is boring everything take to long to setup people have zero time so the have no time to play 8 hours a day. Those times are gone. New kids have zero Patience and the old players leaving the game or sell there account to other people. But still zero time. You want proof go google it its not here only. Its every where in this game industry. People dont want to spend 1 year of training to fly a titan the want it to play right after the pay the game.

Also monthly feed is also a issue for the new generation. Because the have no job and the want to play video games for free.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1097 - 2015-06-07 01:45:34 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Biggest drawback for anything not nullified is bubbles. ...
Pandemic Legion are getting pretty much everywhere when needed on the SOV map via worm holes.
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I can't see many attacking groups willing to just sit around for 4 or 5 hours hoping.
AFK cloakies already spend days in a system.

The station facilities, they are getting turned off, so fast that defenders aren't even arriving in the system before the reds leave. The notifications are so annoying going off and one that I have turned them off.
I think the main structures are going to set timers, much like it is now, so people could form up to defend something.

Here is the catch though ...

Pretend I am a leader of an aggressive SOV coaltion.
Hire a bunch of spectres to roam out of High Sec and into Null. They Entosis everything they can, setting timers.
The defenders get ready to just flip everything blue because they don't expect the spectres to be serious.
Now, I send my guys to spread out over half a region, flagging up everything, ringing all the alarm bells.
Meanwhile, I have arranged that another group do the same on the other side.

The defenders now have only a few systems they can defend and are completely unprepared for the attack.

Say by some miracle they do managed to defend everything. Nothing stopping the griefing to repeat the next day and the next and the next.
After all, the numbers and costs are in my favour. Driving the defenders crazy, blowing up their infrastructure hub is going to be hilarious for all the "lulz" and "tears".

It is Low Sec 2.0.
Worse.
More boring.
More 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.
0bama Barack Hussein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1098 - 2015-06-07 08:27:40 UTC
This won´t be low sec/FW 2.0, no LP involved with these timers! Big smile

But perhaps it will prevent cloaking under 250 km from capture nodes, though? Lol

Anyway, no need to shoot anything in low defended systems inside a huge invading group, so for once warp core stabilizers might get some use Twisted
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1099 - 2015-06-07 12:06:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Biggest drawback for anything not nullified is bubbles. ...
Pandemic Legion are getting pretty much everywhere when needed on the SOV map via worm holes.
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I can't see many attacking groups willing to just sit around for 4 or 5 hours hoping.
AFK cloakies already spend days in a system.

The station facilities, they are getting turned off, so fast that defenders aren't even arriving in the system before the reds leave. The notifications are so annoying going off and one that I have turned them off.
I think the main structures are going to set timers, much like it is now, so people could form up to defend something.

Here is the catch though ...

Pretend I am a leader of an aggressive SOV coaltion.
Hire a bunch of spectres to roam out of High Sec and into Null. They Entosis everything they can, setting timers.
The defenders get ready to just flip everything blue because they don't expect the spectres to be serious.
Now, I send my guys to spread out over half a region, flagging up everything, ringing all the alarm bells.
Meanwhile, I have arranged that another group do the same on the other side.

The defenders now have only a few systems they can defend and are completely unprepared for the attack.

Say by some miracle they do managed to defend everything. Nothing stopping the griefing to repeat the next day and the next and the next.
After all, the numbers and costs are in my favour. Driving the defenders crazy, blowing up their infrastructure hub is going to be hilarious for all the "lulz" and "tears".

It is Low Sec 2.0.
Worse.
More boring.
More tedious.

Yes anything is possible and just as likely, until the tedium and boredom with doing the same thing over and over every day sets in.

Defenders who are constantly having everything RF'd and iHubs popped will eventually just give up.

There will always be the "PL's" who don't mind spending hours preparing for a possible fight on the other side of the universe.
They are likely to become more common once everything is available on Crest.
48 hours to pick your targets and work out the best way to get there, ultimate trolling.

Oh, and a cloaky camper in system for days is not the same as a 200 man fleet sitting there for hours and hours.

The actual timer mechanics are still unclear - So far it seems, as long as you get an entosis link on an RF'd structure before the current vulnerability period ends, there will be no timer. If that is not how it will work, vulnerability windows may as well be done away with altogether.

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.
HeXxploiT
Doomheim
#1100 - 2015-06-07 18:30:50 UTC
Why do people keep repeating low numbers? Almost 37k users on at this moment. Every weekend it looks the same to me. Think you guys look at times when timbuktu is the prime timezone.Big smile