Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I am just simply saying the fact. I dont concider them PL. Yes they have some PL members and they maybe an extension of PL. But far from PL.

INB4 SMA is sent in with pvp entosis firetails that just die without shooting back at anything

Ook ook!

You are the one trying to say "his alliance" din't do anything and I am presenting you the fact that his alliance DID in fact do stuff before in a much meaningful than MoA but you keep trying to dodge the point because he post on his PH character and not his PL one.

Is this thread supposed to devolve into "post on your main or STFU"?

You think this guy is a PH player with the possibility of having an alt in PL and not the other way around?

At least we are blue to Fweddit and they do?

A keen perception obfuscated by the heaps of grr in this thread.

It's a very good point. Any and all opinions on either side are worth nothing compared to hard numbers and real evidence. The success of the system should be measured by the proportions of reinforces that lead to a change in sov, particularly a new entity claiming it. Now you could make such a metric more involved, but it would be much harder to quantify and qualify what counts as a successful defence, especially when many successful defences are just displays of force, and don't actually escalate into fight after both sides are mutually scouted. Therefore, while crude, a good metric is simply the ratio of reinforces that result in a structure/system/etc being changed hands. If an overwhelming majority of reinforces do not result in a change of some kind, then the mechanic is a terrible failure, because one would absolutely not RF something unless one had both the intention and the resources to actually follow through on it, unless it is just simple trolling, which I'd guess the majority is currently. Sov mechanics are supposed to let powers attack each other, not enable a single interceptor to troll a region.

Of course then you could get fancy with those metrics, once you got going. I.E size of the attacker and defender, weighted chances of a successful attack...you could go nuts with it, and it would be absolutely a blast for people who like numbers. At the end of the day though, the take home message is that RFs that do not commonly result in a successful invasion:

A)Should not be costless, they currently are.
-Cost to use an entosis link should be ISK paid to CONCORD
-Cost to fail to actually invade should cost the alliance ISK, status, or incur penalties.
-Limit the amount of entosis an alliance can do based on size: an alliance of 2 corps with 10 people each has no business reinforcing more than a few things at time.
-Unsuccessful Entosis should cause the capsuleer to lose SP, the same way losing a T3 cruiser does.

B)Should not be numerically the overwhelming majority of RFs. RFs are designed to let sovereign entities invade each other, and if this is simply not happening with enough of them, then the mechanic is a failure and needs to be revisited.
-When most RFs are trolling, its a failure.
-When most RFs are actual people actually interested in taking actual space, the mechanic is a raving success!

Graphs won't do. We all remember, hey look, more capitals are exploding post Phoebe graphs - but they aren't very convincing at all when you consider how popular insurance frauding capitals in-lieu of moving them is. A tiny little filter on the data could remove all those, then you'd have a greater chance of convincing people of what you are trying to prove. Or the hilarious amounts of capitals dying in Aridia - yes the average goes up, but they aren't provoking or generating actual fights. It's like watching ship kills in Uedama - PvP yes, fights no.

the only thing that needs ironing out is elimination of pure trolls.
if no one comes to spin the nodes when structures come out of RF they should despawn after couple of days and the structure should go back to defender.

now if someone is serious about taking sov, there is no reason inty shouldn't be able to do it when defender doesn't show up.

you are confusing two things here, pvp and contesting undefended systems.

there is a difference between dropping stack of bombers on someone who can shoot back, and dropping them on the structure with no hostile in local. of course it wasn't entirely risk free, i remember us decimating a few of those fleets, when your people got so bored that they probably went afk and stopped watching local.

same thing applies to inties in current sov mechanics. if someone tried to use them to capture sov against a proper fleet, they'd be dead. they only turn into risk free thing when the system they are used in aren't defended.

in your second sentence you outlines the exact reason why you want inties to not be able to entosis - you just want free kills for anyone in the drop range.

as i outlined before, if you are worried about people trolling your sov, changes need to be done to the mechanics so that the structures return to normal state if no one captured the beacons for a certain period of time.

why should taking something that no one needs enough to bother defending it require much effort?

The implication here that we don't need nor could utilize our current holdings is laughable. Check the ADMs across Imperium space; besides the areas currently undergoing sov transfer in "western" (dotlan projection) Pure Blind, everything is well-utilized.

Thank you, sov team, for adding the publicly visible ADMs and timers; they allow for succinct silencing of these sorts of accusations.

e: Also of note is the fact that we ceded a total of five regions leading up to both Phoebe and Aegis. The vaunted Empire Contraction has taken place! We can only tighten the belt so much (goons are fat.)