These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#721 - 2015-08-20 14:46:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
We're saying there will be no big fights as there's no REASON to start them


Which is of exactly no relevance whatsoever to sov mechanics, whatever they may be.


Lucas Kell wrote:
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.



Good lord your argument is confused indeed. You're bitching about a lack of big fights and in the same breath saying they are the same amount of fun as not having them.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#722 - 2015-08-20 14:53:53 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
really? show me where i was crying to ccp to nerf bombers?
I didn't say you cried, I said you saw people crying.
Lucas Kell wrote:
Warmeister wrote:
but you didn't see anyone crying to CCP
Uh yes you did.
Comprehension, it's a thing.

afkalt wrote:
Which is of exactly no relevance whatsoever to sov mechanics, whatever they may be.
Except of course where it has everything to do with sov mechanics, since they are the primary conflict driver (or should be) in a competitive ownership system.

afkalt wrote:
Good lord your argument is confused indeed. You're bitching about a lack of big fights and in the same breath saying they are the same amount of fun as not having them.
That's not confused. My level of fun will not change whether I have big fights or not, but the amount of people interested in playing EVE will. I think your confusion comes from the fact that you can't comprehend someone having an opinion about something that isn't selfishly driven by what's in it for them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#723 - 2015-08-20 15:00:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

No, larger battles occured because of the need to commit.


You only comit if its worth to comit or if its fun. Otherwise you stay at home making isk, which is what you do. You said it above already. I dont care about isk. Nobody is going to comit to a big fight knowing you are outblobbing them and they stand a chance to lose it all unless you are looking for fun. Right now there is nobody near to CFC to do this. I doubt there is anyone in game even. CFC has becomes its true enemy.

Lucas Kell wrote:

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.
I think you are the one that think you are special and your holly empire of renting or isk making should not be touched...


who are you to tell me what should work how? In fact who are you to tell eve what?
I do what I want to do. I am not going to play by your strenght but by mine!

Lucas Kell wrote:

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.


You form up every day the anti entosis fleets to chase us down. We have captured serveral system. You got to blob us every night cos we fail so much. We have failed Lol

Lucas Kell wrote:

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.


Yeah and no. BL has not been able to do much besides every time it does you pay them off to go away. I agree that MOA need to ramp up their numbers and think bigger. If you look at our forums, you will see I have not been shy about it in any way! I am one of the voices that says this all the time. You can ask Massa or Gen, I am sure they are tired of hearing it Blink

But you got to also admit, that its is not sufficient. If it was that simple BL would already own half your space! So there is something more here that stops even entities like BL to take over your space.



afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#724 - 2015-08-20 15:11:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Which is of exactly no relevance whatsoever to sov mechanics, whatever they may be.
Except of course where it has everything to do with sov mechanics, since they are the primary conflict driver (or should be) in a competitive ownership system.


I didn't think I'd need to spell out that the sov CAPTURE mechanics do not matter a damn, yet here I am....

The fact no-one has a reason to go contest sov is NOT a fault with aegis, rather null itself. It is a completely different discussion.

It has already been shown that even with current sov, when two parties both want the same thing, a fight happen. And it is not nano-nonsense either.

Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you.
Qui Binder
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#725 - 2015-08-20 15:14:48 UTC
Kystraz wrote:

So they became CSM members without being voted in by large numbers of players who agree with their viewpoints?

Is that what you're trying to say?


They had large numbers of players who voted for them, that is true. It's a huge leap from there to say that they agreed with their viewpoints.

CFC and other large nullsec alliances agreed to vote for each others candidates in order to 'fix' the election. CFC sent out a filled in ballot and asked every pilot to vote that ballot with every account exactly, that order, thus ensuring that the CSM will be overly represented by pilots from large nullsec blocks. CFC pilots were asked to vote for candidates that were in red (hostile) alliances, because they had agreements that those red alliances were going to ask their pilots to vote for the CFC candidates.

It's cute that you think the CSM was elected by people who took the time to review the candidates positions and make independent selections. Don't let go of that naive optimism.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#726 - 2015-08-20 15:22:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Speedkermit Damo
Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.


An alt, thats what all the worthless scrubs say. Post with your main or get knotted.

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.

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#727 - 2015-08-20 15:25:54 UTC
Qui Binder wrote:
Kystraz wrote:

So they became CSM members without being voted in by large numbers of players who agree with their viewpoints?

Is that what you're trying to say?


They had large numbers of players who voted for them, that is true. It's a huge leap from there to say that they agreed with their viewpoints.

CFC and other large nullsec alliances agreed to vote for each others candidates in order to 'fix' the election. CFC sent out a filled in ballot and asked every pilot to vote that ballot with every account exactly, that order, thus ensuring that the CSM will be overly represented by pilots from large nullsec blocks. CFC pilots were asked to vote for candidates that were in red (hostile) alliances, because they had agreements that those red alliances were going to ask their pilots to vote for the CFC candidates.

It's cute that you think the CSM was elected by people who took the time to review the candidates positions and make independent selections. Don't let go of that naive optimism.


Just like political party in democratic country, the election in EVE went to the side who were able to get their supporter to vote while many candidate were un-able to get to vote for them to happen.

Also, while a ballot is suggested in most large alliance, nobody can really be held to follow it. It's not like I'm un-able to vote for whoever I want just because I have a [CONDI] tag beside my name.

The biggest reason why the high-sec candidates rarely make it is mostly because the vote they rely on is diluted on so many different candidate instead of being concentrated. Nobody is able to rally their vote under a single or few banners.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#728 - 2015-08-20 15:26:16 UTC
afkalt wrote:
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.

So out of the hundreds and hundreds of created timers, ONE was seriously contested - and you see that as a good step forward?

NB; The ceptors were there, they did their thing after the fight ended.

Escalate quickly?
It was little more than staged, all parties knew who was coming and when. One 3rd party even turned around and went home after, I believe, misunderstanding what they were told by those they were to have been fighting.

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.

bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#729 - 2015-08-20 15:30:01 UTC
afkalt wrote:

Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you.


Jesus was this your first big fight in EVE Online: A Spaceship Game ? You keep harping on this one single conflict. Single. As in a value of one.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#730 - 2015-08-20 15:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
afkalt wrote:

Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you.


Jesus was this your first big fight in EVE Online: A Spaceship Game ? You keep harping on this one single conflict. Single. As in a value of one.


Do you have another example of a seriously contested timer?

I don't.

Again, not a mechanic fault (how many were contested in the 6 weeks prior to it going live?) but a far different problem.


Do you have examples of serious sov being contested with just small ships? Thought not.
bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#731 - 2015-08-20 15:33:04 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The biggest reason why the high-sec candidates rarely make it is mostly because the vote they rely on is diluted on so many different candidate instead of being concentrated. Nobody is able to rally their vote under a single or few banners.


That and a large majority of people in highsec are nullsec alts.
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#732 - 2015-08-20 15:33:47 UTC
Qui Binder wrote:
Kystraz wrote:

So they became CSM members without being voted in by large numbers of players who agree with their viewpoints?

Is that what you're trying to say?


They had large numbers of players who voted for them, that is true. It's a huge leap from there to say that they agreed with their viewpoints.

CFC and other large nullsec alliances agreed to vote for each others candidates in order to 'fix' the election. CFC sent out a filled in ballot and asked every pilot to vote that ballot with every account exactly, that order, thus ensuring that the CSM will be overly represented by pilots from large nullsec blocks. CFC pilots were asked to vote for candidates that were in red (hostile) alliances, because they had agreements that those red alliances were going to ask their pilots to vote for the CFC candidates.

It's cute that you think the CSM was elected by people who took the time to review the candidates positions and make independent selections. Don't let go of that naive optimism.


Agree. For the most part CSM is a sham. Its a popularity contest gone wrong in terms of own alliance self interests.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#733 - 2015-08-20 15:37:36 UTC
Icycle wrote:
Nobody is going to comit to a big fight.
Exactly. Nobody will.

Icycle wrote:
who are you to tell me what should work how? In fact who are you to tell eve what?
I do what I want to do. I am not going to play by your strenght but by mine!
It's basic human nature. You've even done it yourself which is why you are part of MOA. You could contest goons on your own, but you know it's better to group up with others to do it, so you do. That will always be the case. Multiple weaker groups will join to defeat a common enemy.

Icycle wrote:
You form up every day the anti entosis fleets to chase us down. We have captured serveral system. You got to blob us every night cos we fail so much. We have failed Lol
The only systems you "captured" are ones mid way between being swapped between our alliances internally. You've failed because you've had almost no impact on our coalition, other than providing us with content from time to time.

Icycle wrote:
Yeah and no. BL has not been able to do much besides every time it does you pay them off to go away. I agree that MOA need to ramp up their numbers and think bigger. If you look at our forums, you will see I have not been shy about it in any way! I am one of the voices that says this all the time. You can ask Massa or Gen, I am sure they are tired of hearing it Blink
And why do you think we've paid them off yet never offered to pay you guys? It's because BL actually caused us significant problems, you haven't.

Icycle wrote:
But you got to also admit, that its is not sufficient. If it was that simple BL would already own half your space! So there is something more here that stops even entities like BL to take over your space.
Yeah, the fact that we are remotely competent and we work as a team to achieve a common goal. Again, we're back to collaboration being a powerful thing in an MMO.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#734 - 2015-08-20 15:37:49 UTC
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The biggest reason why the high-sec candidates rarely make it is mostly because the vote they rely on is diluted on so many different candidate instead of being concentrated. Nobody is able to rally their vote under a single or few banners.


That and a large majority of people in highsec are nullsec alts.


Well that too but even if you were to "RP" your high-sec alt as a high-sec player, you would have trouble voting for some people and not ending with the votes still being spread all over the place. Organisation win election.
bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#735 - 2015-08-20 15:38:42 UTC
afkalt wrote:
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
afkalt wrote:

Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you.


Jesus was this your first big fight in EVE Online: A Spaceship Game ? You keep harping on this one single conflict. Single. As in a value of one.


Do you have another example of a seriously contested timer?

I don't.

Again, not a mechanic fault (how many were contested in the 6 weeks prior to it going live?) but a far different problem.


Do you have examples of serious sov being contested with just small ships? Thought not.



What? So your original argument is that there are ~gud fights~ from new sov system by sharing one example of proof concerning some t3s and machs. Now you are saying you can't find another example, after I pointed out that is only one example, thus disproving your original comment.

No, I do not have examples because there are none, supporting my initial views on the subject matter that the new system is not promoting group conflict.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#736 - 2015-08-20 15:43:47 UTC
afkalt wrote:
I didn't think I'd need to spell out that the sov CAPTURE mechanics do not matter a damn, yet here I am....

The fact no-one has a reason to go contest sov is NOT a fault with aegis, rather null itself. It is a completely different discussion.

It has already been shown that even with current sov, when two parties both want the same thing, a fight happen. And it is not nano-nonsense either.

Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you.
So are you suggesting that the stats supplied by CCP through dotlan are wrong, and that conflict has not decreased this month?

Sov mechanics aren;t the only, but are a major factor in driving conflict. The fact that you can't comprehend this leads me to question how much experience you actually have with either the new or old sov system.

afkalt wrote:
Do you have another example of a seriously contested timer?

I don't.
Neither do we, hence the problem.

afkalt wrote:
Do you have examples of serious sov being contested with just small ships? Thought not.
No, because most people aren't seriously contesting sov. Again, that's the problem. Why would people seriously contest sov when they can just troll and cause a similar reaction? Again, it's comes down to an accepted lack of commitment in the new system.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#737 - 2015-08-20 15:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
afkalt wrote:
bigbillthaboss3 wrote:
afkalt wrote:

Or maybe you think machs, T3s and HACs on field is non-committal nano-nonsense, /shrug. If that's the case, I can't help you.


Jesus was this your first big fight in EVE Online: A Spaceship Game ? You keep harping on this one single conflict. Single. As in a value of one.


Do you have another example of a seriously contested timer?

I don't.

Again, not a mechanic fault (how many were contested in the 6 weeks prior to it going live?) but a far different problem.


Do you have examples of serious sov being contested with just small ships? Thought not.



What? So your original argument is that there are ~gud fights~ from new sov system by sharing one example of proof concerning some t3s and machs. Now you are saying you can't find another example, after I pointed out that is only one example, thus disproving your original comment.

No, I do not have examples because there are none, supporting my initial views on the subject matter that the new system is not promoting group conflict.



Sigh.

No. The contention is that the statement that fozziesov is stopping fights is a fallacy.

I contend that there had (up until last night) been no serious contests.


So of the one serious contest I'm aware of, it has not involved nano-non committal stuff. Thus that argument is shaky at best. By all means, prove me wrong - Show me some serious sov/station contests duked out by the dual of the interceptors.

The new system would never have promoted conflict, group or otherwise but nor should it. It is by its very nature NOT a conflict driver. How are people not getting this? It is a mechanic, the drive to start a conflict needs to be something else.

Why do you think a capture MECHANIC change is going to create a CONFLICT DRIVER?

They are two fundamentally different things.

There is literally no capture mechanic in existence they could have put in place which would suddenly drive the empires to war, it is illogical to think otherwise.


So if we want decent feedback on the mechanics and it's challenges and growing pains, we should be keeping it to relevant areas and not complaining about things which it has exactly nothing to do with.




@
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, because most people aren't seriously contesting sov. Again, that's the problem. Why would people seriously contest sov when they can just troll and cause a similar reaction? Again, it's comes down to an accepted lack of commitment in the new system.


And were they "seriously" contesting it in a months before the new system? Were they hell. So nothing has changed on that front.

You're bitching about the wrong thing.
bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#738 - 2015-08-20 15:51:52 UTC
afkalt wrote:
~words~


Ok, so I think I kinda understand you?

You actually agree with us that the Entosis link on interceptors is dumb because no one seriously takes sov with an interceptor(s).

You further go on to agree with a more unrelated, but relevant, opinion of the masses that nullsec needs value added to provide reason for taking sov in the first place.

Got it.
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#739 - 2015-08-20 15:55:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Icycle
Lucas Kell wrote:
Exactly. Nobody will.

Nobody has in a loooooong while. Who the hell will comit to the CFC if they dont have a chace for example? I dont see BL doing it Lol. It must be for a reason.


Lucas Kell wrote:

It's basic human nature. You've even done it yourself which is why you are part of MOA. You could contest goons on your own, but you know it's better to group up with others to do it, so you do. That will always be the case. Multiple weaker groups will join to defeat a common enemy.


I seriosuly disagree with blobbing a human nature. For many years this was not it until these large blue blobs began to appear. I am not saying that communities are not build...all iam saying this is not a community. Thats just a fight for who got the largest blob to throw at someone. This is not the eve I used to play. You want to blob fine be my guest but dont whine when you dont get kills. The other day you guys were blobbing us and decide to refit and you lost your numbers became smaller. We engaged you probably 30 vs 30 more or less. Both parties had fun. Blob us again and we will deny you the fun the same way CFC did to its oponents for years!

Lucas Kell wrote:

The only systems you "captured" are ones mid way between being swapped between our alliances internally. You've failed because you've had almost no impact on our coalition, other than providing us with content from time to time.

To you is a failure. To us to do this vs 50000 people + titans and all the stuff that you guys throw at us its a victory. We are 1000.

Lucas Kell wrote:

And why do you think we've paid them off yet never offered to pay you guys? It's because BL actually caused us significant problems, you haven't.


Well thats obvious. You have discovered cold water!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#740 - 2015-08-20 16:09:23 UTC
afkalt wrote:
No. The contention is that the statement that fozziesov is stopping fights is a fallacy.
It's not that it stops them, it simply leaves no reason to start them. Conflicts will happen, sure, but not very many since there's no need to commit to it.
afkalt wrote:
So of the one serious contest I'm aware of, it has not involved nano-non committal stuff. Thus that argument is shaky at best. By all means, prove me wrong - Show me some serious sov/station contests duked out by the dual of the interceptors.
Right, so the one serious contest out of the several hundred if not thousand timers and nodes contested. The vast majority of all of those was from "non-commital stuff". Without a reason to commit, people will choose not to, it's the optimal choice.

afkalt wrote:
Why do you think a capture MECHANIC change is going to create a CONFLICT DRIVER?
Because that's one of it's stated aims:
"We hope to achieve this goal by focusing on an easily understood core game system that encourages player interaction and conflict."

afkalt wrote:
And were they "seriously" contesting it in a months before the new system? Were they hell. So nothing has changed on that front.
Of course not, the problem with the old system is that it also didn't drive conflict very well. It certainly did a better job than the new system over the years, but no, it was also a bad system. They need to have a sov system that people want to interact with, that is entertaining to be part of. You know, the #1 states goal of Aegis sov.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.