These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#701 - 2015-08-20 14:20:53 UTC
afkalt wrote:
To be fair, those battles could happen (virtually) tomorrow if the players wished it to be so.
They could, but they won't. Big battles cost isk. Why would players throw that down if they stand to gain little to nothing regardless of the outcome?

afkalt wrote:
The reason they do not, is players currently value ownership of space pixels over blow-out levels of fun.
No, it's simply easier to have fun in ways that don't involve throwing billions of isk away. People don't need to commit isk to attacking, so they don't. Effectively you guys are saying it's fine for some tiny alliance to put nothing on the line to contest sov with no chance of actually taking it, but big alliances should literally throw away trillions of isk to create content for no gain. No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff while null continues to stagnate.

Warmeister wrote:
the only reason those battles occurred is because people stuffed up.

most of the times what happens is that one of the sides looks at the opponent, decides it's not worth the risk and punts the timer.
Those battles occurred because a group wanted something and committed to it. Another group committed to defense and then the fight escalated until one side could afford no more escalation. What they've removed is the need to commit and thus the need to escalate the fight. These will now only happen if people actively seek a giant battle which will be rare.

afkalt wrote:
The ENTIRE alliance jump clones? Stops playing? Really? You think that's not a win for you?
Not the entire alliance, but enough players just evade to make the entire act pointless. Propaganda aside, we don;t play this game to watch other people not play, we play to be entertained. It's not entertaining to idly sit around while your opponents refuse to play.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#702 - 2015-08-20 14:25:28 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
i'm not trolling i just figured that i'm entitled to respond to stupid ideas with another stupid idea.
Then explain why you feel it's a stupid idea. You stated yourself that it's for defenders not showing up. If they don't show up, it doesn't matter if you are in a bloody Orca, you're safe. The only reason to use an interceptor is for if they DO show up, so you can run away.

Warmeister wrote:
the thing you said about 'conflict should be driven' is whole load of crap. there are plenty of other ships that have been used prior to fozzisov that could evade capture. there are plenty examples where fleets decide not to engage and just run from the attacker.
Name one that could single handed contest sov. Ia have no problem with interceptors existing, I have a problem with their ability to contest sov. Contesting sov should take commitment, it's an alliance level activity after all.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#703 - 2015-08-20 14:26:36 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Troll status confirmed. The only reason to being an evasion fit interceptor is to evade. All of this horseshit about it being against defenders who don't show up is ridiculous.

The point is that undefended sov should be easy to take. When a defender shows up though then conflict should be driven. Interceptors mean that players can assault sov with no intention of fighting and no intention of taking sov. It's dumb.

i'm not trolling i just figured that i'm entitled to respond to stupid ideas with another stupid idea.

the thing you said about 'conflict should be driven' is whole load of crap. there are plenty of other ships that have been used prior to fozzisov that could evade capture. there are plenty examples where fleets decide not to engage and just run from the attacker.

why don't we just ask CCP to equalise the speed of all ships and disable warp drives of everyone in the system for 5 minutes once someone new enters. how's that for a conflict driver?


lol i can already see a few "scout pods one day old" account been created for this purposes Lol
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#704 - 2015-08-20 14:28:33 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Lucas Kell wrote:
afkalt wrote:
To be fair, those battles could happen (virtually) tomorrow if the players wished it to be so.
They could, but they won't. Big battles cost isk. Why would players throw that down if they stand to gain little to nothing regardless of the outcome?

afkalt wrote:
The reason they do not, is players currently value ownership of space pixels over blow-out levels of fun.
No, it's simply easier to have fun in ways that don't involve throwing billions of isk away. People don't need to commit isk to attacking, so they don't. Effectively you guys are saying it's fine for some tiny alliance to put nothing on the line to contest sov with no chance of actually taking it, but big alliances should literally throw away trillions of isk to create content for no gain. No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff while null continues to stagnate.


No. I am not saying that at all.

YOU are the one blaming the lack of big fights with the new system.
YOU are the ones refusing to start them
YOU are the people putting isk ahead of fun whilst moaning about fun.


What I am saying is your complaints about big fights and a lack of fun have exactly nothing to do with the new system.

Currently (and correct me if I am wrong) there has been exactly one fight for a system which was actually of interest to both parties and >gasp< it was NOT contested with frigates and lasers!!!! Who could have predicted.

Quote:
No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff


This, right here, THIS is why you have issues finding fun. Fights are awesome, as long as someone else does the dying, right?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#705 - 2015-08-20 14:28:46 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Warmeister wrote:
you are quite right. it's not zipping around in interceptor that gives the ownership, it's failure of defenders to show up.
if an entity wants to hold space, they need to dedicate themselves to it, and show up for defense. it shouldn't be based on defender sitting docked up protected by gazillions of HP
Then why not make it so entosis modules can only go on a a BC or above? If the defenders don't show up, then ship type is irrelevant. The only reason people want to use interceptors is so they can run away when defenders do show up. Tell me I'm wrong.

you are wrong.

why not complement it with a rule that defenders can only attack the ship that runs entosis with exact same ship class, and only one person can attack. if that person dies, entosis ship is granted full immunity until he finishes entosising structure

War, I think it is time you went to bed.. Your reply just makes no sense and comes across as a very poor troll attempt. Get some sleep - Get some perspective.
Lucas has a good point. Undoubtedly the strongest "command link" in the game, SHOULD be designed to fit ships with the roles to fit command links.

If not straight out restricted to ships that can fit command links, at least give those ships a bonus to Entosis links. Could be easily done by increasing the amount of Stront needed by X2 or even X3 - Ceptor can still fit and use an Entosis link but will need at least 1 friend with him to feed him fuel.

Does anyone really want to be stuck playing "interceptors online" for the next few years.
Drakes online, Supers online, Ishtars online and now Interceptors online.

Why not give battle cruisers a role in sov?
The only reason to not do it would be because "trolling" is by design, the new meta Devs are encouraging.
Pity interceptors + sov = conflict avoidance - Negates a few of the stated goals for the new sov.

Without Entosis links Interceptors could in fact have an even more integral role in sov - Tackle ships, which oddly enough, is a role at which they excel.

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.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#706 - 2015-08-20 14:29:12 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:

I'm getting plenty of fights in my alliance thanks. And I'm not the one complaining about a lack of content or fights. I was referring to the posters who are complaining about having no-one to shoot while surrounded by blues.
Damn that must have been one tough solo pvp myrm, 34 of eves best to kill him.
Now that's some pretty awesome content right there.


You've been on eight killmails in over two years, and six of those were Pocos.

Considering you less than stellar pvp record, you might want to be a bit more selective in who you sneer at.


Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#707 - 2015-08-20 14:29:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Name one that could single handed contest sov. Ia have no problem with interceptors existing, I have a problem with their ability to contest sov. Contesting sov should take commitment, it's an alliance level activity after all.


torp bombers your coalition used to grind sov during fountain and halloween wars that could cloak as soon as someone enters local, and that can move via covert cynos.

and before you say 'but it was more than one person' think whether there would be any difference to your crying if your opponent brought 50 inties instead of 1
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#708 - 2015-08-20 14:31:04 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
afkalt wrote:
To be fair, those battles could happen (virtually) tomorrow if the players wished it to be so.
They could, but they won't. Big battles cost isk. Why would players throw that down if they stand to gain little to nothing regardless of the outcome?

afkalt wrote:
The reason they do not, is players currently value ownership of space pixels over blow-out levels of fun.
No, it's simply easier to have fun in ways that don't involve throwing billions of isk away. People don't need to commit isk to attacking, so they don't. Effectively you guys are saying it's fine for some tiny alliance to put nothing on the line to contest sov with no chance of actually taking it, but big alliances should literally throw away trillions of isk to create content for no gain. No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff while null continues to stagnate.


No. I am not saying that at all.

YOU are the one blaming the lack of big fights with the new system.
YOU are the ones refusing to start them
YOU are the people putting isk ahead of fun whilst moaning about fun.


What I am saying is your complaints about big fights and a lack of fun have exactly nothing to do with the new system.

Currently (and correct me if I am wrong) there has been exactly one fight for a system which was actually of interest to both parties and >gasp< it was NOT contested with frigates and lasers!!!! Who could have predicted.

Quote:
No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff


This, right here, THIS is why you have issues finding fun. Fights are awesome, as long as someone else does the dying, right?


One? More like one per day. Come south, we're already past the entosis 101 here. Gewns did not even start yet.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#709 - 2015-08-20 14:32:19 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Does anyone really want to be stuck playing "interceptors online" for the next few years.
Drakes online, Supers online, Ishtars online and now Interceptors online.


Because it WONT be.

For the Nth time....the (as far as I know) only seriously contested timer was last night and the field was...

Machariels
T3s
HACs

Not a single ******* trollceptor to be seen. Imagine that, when **** gets real people escalate quickly.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#710 - 2015-08-20 14:33:11 UTC
Icycle wrote:
So you have acknowledged that B-R5RB was an event that was by a mistake of an FC and also by the alliance not paying sov. Before that, all the battles were reasonable and the difference was not as high.
Large battles have been happened in eve for years. The difference is that before there was a lot less blues and a lot more drama. Not there is a lot more blue and a lot less drama.
No, larger battles occured because of the need to commit. That need hs been removed.

Icycle wrote:
Its very simple!
LESS Blues, more DRAMA, more FIGHTS!
MORE Blues, less DRAMA, less FIGHTS!
Stop being special. That's not how it works. At some point a group will always rise to the top and others will work together to bring them down. That's the great social aspect of the game. What you want is to make it so that one person is able to cause as much damage as a whole alliance because you're terrible at collaboration.

Icycle wrote:
The reality is that everyone is happy so stay at home and make isk and not engage in big fights. At MOA we are trying to change that Blink We are trying to make you lose territory and brake up with gobly blob of blues thats hurting the game so much.
Well you're failing, especially since you're supporting changes that make it EASIER for us to stay at home and not engage in big fights.

Icycle wrote:
In a convensional world how do you fight a number thats over 50 times larger than you? You have to change the way you think and you got to provide tools to do it that are not present in the game, its the only way. The other way is another DRF. But with so many blues I doubt it will happen.
Ask BL, they did a pretty good job of causing significant damage. You harp on about your killboard, but BL did more damage to the Imperium in a single fight than you guys have done in the history of your existence. You guys think too small and that's why you can;t see how damaging these changes are to your cause. I guarantee once the dust settles you'll suddenly realise how easy it is for us to res on our laurels.

Icycle wrote:
Its the blue donut that is the desease
Roll

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#711 - 2015-08-20 14:35:17 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Name one that could single handed contest sov. Ia have no problem with interceptors existing, I have a problem with their ability to contest sov. Contesting sov should take commitment, it's an alliance level activity after all.


torp bombers your coalition used to grind sov during fountain and halloween wars that could cloak as soon as someone enters local, and that can move via covert cynos.

and before you say 'but it was more than one person' think whether there would be any difference to your crying if your opponent brought 50 inties instead of 1


TBH, both case are extremely stupid and a proof that game mechanics are bad...
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#712 - 2015-08-20 14:35:30 UTC
it is amazing how many people without two brain cells to rub together look at a viciously competitive game where you win or die, see that people playing it to win don't do X, and then assert that people playing to win should just do X instead of that the mechanics are flawed

i suppose if you've never won, you don't really 'get' playing to win
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#713 - 2015-08-20 14:38:45 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:

I'm getting plenty of fights in my alliance thanks. And I'm not the one complaining about a lack of content or fights. I was referring to the posters who are complaining about having no-one to shoot while surrounded by blues.
Damn that must have been one tough solo pvp myrm, 34 of eves best to kill him.
Now that's some pretty awesome content right there.


You've been on eight killmails in over two years, and six of those were Pocos.

Considering you less than stellar pvp record, you might want to be a bit more selective in who you sneer at.



Yeah and this is an alt.. So whats your point.
Doesn't change the fact you are an F1 blob bot who thinks 34 vs 1 is good content and something to brag about.

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.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#714 - 2015-08-20 14:38:48 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

TBH, both case are extremely stupid and a proof that game mechanics are bad...

but you didn't see anyone crying to CCP to nerf bombers so that they couldn't shoot structures, and all alliances that wanted to have fun actually used doctrines with more expensive ships.

this isn't any different
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#715 - 2015-08-20 14:39:43 UTC
afkalt wrote:
No. I am not saying that at all.

YOU are the one blaming the lack of big fights with the new system.
YOU are the ones refusing to start them
YOU are the people putting isk ahead of fun whilst moaning about fun.
No, we're not. We're saying there will be no big fights as there's no REASON to start them, and we are having fun by avoiding the mechanics. The mechanics suck beyond belief, so we simply won't use them where we can avoid it.

afkalt wrote:
Quote:
No thanks, I'll continue to enjoy myself and keep all my stuff
This, right here, THIS is why you have issues finding fun. Fights are awesome, as long as someone else does the dying, right?
ROFL. So here are 2 options:

1. Have fun, keep stuff.
2. Have fun, throw away stuff.

Which would you pick? I'd always pick 1, since stuff leads to more fun later. You're literally stating that we should throw stuff away to make big fights, even though the level of entertainment for us will be the same. We gain no additional entertainment and no progress in the game by having big battles. If CCP want to remove big battles, that's up to them, we are simply pointing out that in the long run it will end badly.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#716 - 2015-08-20 14:40:09 UTC
question from an idiot: "if you want more challenging fights, why don't you pointlessly and needlessly cripple yourself instead of waiting for ccp to fix the game?"

obvious answer: there is a reason i pay money, and ccp earns money: it's their job to fix the game and it's my job to win it
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#717 - 2015-08-20 14:41:57 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
question from an idiot: "if you want more challenging fights, why don't you pointlessly and needlessly cripple yourself instead of waiting for ccp to fix the game?"

obvious answer: there is a reason i pay money, and ccp earns money: it's their job to fix the game and it's my job to win it

in other words you just want your 'i win' button, so you can keep pressing it at your leisure?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#718 - 2015-08-20 14:42:22 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
torp bombers your coalition used to grind sov during fountain and halloween wars that could cloak as soon as someone enters local, and that can move via covert cynos.

and before you say 'but it was more than one person' think whether there would be any difference to your crying if your opponent brought 50 inties instead of 1
So a single torp bomber on it's own could contest sov could it?

And no, I'd be fine with 50 interceptors. In fact I'll say that now.

CCP, my suggestion is either:
a) require a BC or above for entosis links
or
b) require 50+ interceptors to run an entosis link.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#719 - 2015-08-20 14:44:18 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

TBH, both case are extremely stupid and a proof that game mechanics are bad...

but you didn't see anyone crying to CCP to nerf bombers so that they couldn't shoot structures, and all alliances that wanted to have fun actually used doctrines with more expensive ships.

this isn't any different
Uh yes you did. You still do. People complain about stealth bombers all the time and did moreso during fountain.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#720 - 2015-08-20 14:45:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Uh yes you did. You still do. People complain about stealth bombers all the time and did moreso during fountain.

really? show me where i was crying to ccp to nerf bombers?