These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#181 - 2016-03-21 21:57:43 UTC
Xeno Szenn wrote:
you keep saying an rmter and it keeps getting thrown around but no one offers prof that this is the case
There's little other reason to gather up trillions and trillions of isk, the guy has a pretty much perfect laundering system (since he controls logs of who wins) and a higher ratio of IWI bankers have been banned than in the rest of the game (according to Noizy who knows his stuff), and that's if you ignore the direct accusations from multiple sources. I'm not usually one to go with "no smoke without fire" but that's an awful lot of smoke. Personally I think sites such as this put too big a hole in the ability of CCP to trace transactions so should just be shut down regardless - and you can go ahead and check my posting history to see this was the case looooong before the whole SMA v IWI thing before you jump to that assumption.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
From your point of view, I’m sure it feels like a siege or a war. From my point of view, it’s just content and ways to get the fights we want.
From my point of view it feels like being forced to play with bad mechanics while enemies run away and cloak up. I'd love a war that brings proper content, these mechanics just don't encourage that, not even remotely. You might be an exception to that, but that's the reality for most people engaged in it.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
You keep saying the attacker should commit and I’ll quote the Mattanis fireside chat last night “we owe you nothing”. So the question has to be raised why does the attacker owe you anything?
They don;t ow me anything, but a balanced mechanic would have both sides put something on the table to fight over. That's a basic principle of games. If only one side has a stake in the game then it's becomes completely one sided. As I sad earlier, imagine playing poker against someone who gets to keep their chips regardless while you always have to go all in. They can play to only win or break even, while you have the potential to lose.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
I like your idea of citadels being the core of sov if when they were destroyed everything was lost like it would be in wormholes. That system there would be the crux of risk to reward for me because then the attacker has to defend or they lose everything but they get to set the times when they defend. Can that work in a system without etnosis, I hub, tcus, or even your name on the map they could remove all of that fairly easily. And it could be a better system again I wouldn’t mind fighting in tidi every fleet and having massive fights ever3ytime I log in.
I imagine ihubs and tcus will all be citadel modules in the long run. Tidi is less of an issue on the new hardware. Additionally I think null stations (player owned and NPC) will lose a lot of features or go completely so attackers will also need to put their assets at risk to have the benefit of living on a sov owners doorstep.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
I think instead of having a spin zone or propaganda and I’m sure my words are being thought of as propaganda as well we need an honest discussion of game mechanics. No matter what mechanics they introduce its going to hurt someone and we have to adapt to it.
True, but as long as they are somewhat balanced and most importantly entertaining whether winning or losing then they will be much better.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Xeno Szenn
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#182 - 2016-03-21 23:27:47 UTC
Lucas i treid to qute the qute but the fourms wouldnt let me so i split them off for each point. This conversation is a blast and i'm glad we can have a good discussion on mechanics and gameplay.

if it realy is an issue the people doing the rmt need to be banned. any form of rmt is bad for the game and should be stoped. people making acusations is also not proof but something the ccp should look into if alot of people are crying fowl. If they have looked into and theres no rmt then that should be the end of it.

[

I wont speak for others in absolute certainty but form my experiance the only way to get a fight is to force the other side to fight. Fair fights don;t exsist in this game and they realy shouldn't. People honoring there word is a matter of practicality but beyond that it's a sandbox let people do what they will.



in this case you guys can hunt down and hit entosis ships as well denying us the ablity to force a fight. to me thats our risk that we might not be able to force a fight. either side can blueball and deny the fight. thats my loss if i cant get the fight i want you won that round if i do then i won. to me thats realy it all boils down to not sure anyone else.



without having a palce to stage from no one would attack anyone becuse your risk to reward ratio is way out of perportion.



sov as far is know has never been entertaining. it makes history and news boradcast but never has it been a blast for the people fighting in it. the rewards are supposed to outballance the pain that comes with sov in my oppinion.
Shuckstar
Blue Dreams Plus
#183 - 2016-03-22 00:46:54 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Yeah I feel like calling it guerrilla tactics lends it more credibility than it deserves.


Sounds like what I used to play as a kid, Knock door run Lol

CCP Greyscale wrote:"OK, I've read every post up to page 200, and we're getting to a point in this thread where there's not a lot of new concerns or suggestions being brought up. There will be future threads (and future blogs) as we tune details, but for now I want to thank you for all of your constructive input, and wish you a good weekend :)"

CBBOMBERMAN
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2016-03-22 07:49:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


Xeno Szenn wrote:
You keep saying the attacker should commit and I’ll quote the Mattanis fireside chat last night “we owe you nothing”. So the question has to be raised why does the attacker owe you anything?
They don;t ow me anything, but a balanced mechanic would have both sides put something on the table to fight over. That's a basic principle of games. If only one side has a stake in the game then it's becomes completely one sided. As I sad earlier, imagine playing poker against someone who gets to keep their chips regardless while you always have to go all in. They can play to only win or break even, while you have the potential to lose.



You can get your big slugfest when you comeback to defend after reinforcement. So far we have seen a few of this in this war where large battles and super have been used. Other cases like ihubs, cfc has refused to engage. There seems to be a contradiction here dont you think when you want to claim lack of comitment... cfc lost 3 ihubs. Did not bother with comiting to defence.
If you are expecting them to drop supers on you then you are high. In war you fight using your strenght, not your weaknesses for the most part at least. Considering you are 50k coalition you should not be surprised... they are not here to make you have fun but to kill your coalition and maybe they have fun but not you if the can help it. Lets not forget that this has been a cfc strategy for years. Kinda funny when the same strategy is used against you now....i am enjoying the war.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#185 - 2016-03-22 08:00:04 UTC
Xeno Szenn wrote:
if it realy is an issue the people doing the rmt need to be banned. any form of rmt is bad for the game and should be stoped. people making acusations is also not proof but something the ccp should look into if alot of people are crying fowl. If they have looked into and theres no rmt then that should be the end of it.
CCP don;t control the logs for the IWI server though, so tracking what is a player legitimately winning a jackpot and what is someone paying cash for that win is impossible. This is why they should simply close the potential loophole.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
I wont speak for others in absolute certainty but form my experiance the only way to get a fight is to force the other side to fight. Fair fights don;t exsist in this game and they realy shouldn't. People honoring there word is a matter of practicality but beyond that it's a sandbox let people do what they will.
If you give both sides a good reason to not run away (something to lose if they do) then they should naturally fight. This is what I mean when I say attackers should commit. They need to have a negative consequence to running away or losing like defenders do, then they will actually bring a fight.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
in this case you guys can hunt down and hit entosis ships as well denying us the ablity to force a fight. to me thats our risk that we might not be able to force a fight. either side can blueball and deny the fight. thats my loss if i cant get the fight i want you won that round if i do then i won. to me thats realy it all boils down to not sure anyone else.
Only one side can blueball. Attackers can blueball and defender will form up, and the attackers can laugh, but if it's the other way round the attackers just entosis the ihub/tcu/station. The defenders have to show up because they have something to lose.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
without having a palce to stage from no one would attack anyone becuse your risk to reward ratio is way out of perportion.
They would have a place to stage from, and like sov owners they would have to actually defend it.

Xeno Szenn wrote:
sov as far is know has never been entertaining. it makes history and news boradcast but never has it been a blast for the people fighting in it. the rewards are supposed to outballance the pain that comes with sov in my oppinion.
I used to very much enjoy it before they destroyed it with fozziesov, so did a lot of others. If they had moved it in a positive direction it would have been better at least.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#186 - 2016-03-22 08:06:32 UTC
CBBOMBERMAN wrote:
You can get your big slugfest when you comeback to defend after reinforcement. So far we have seen a few of this in this war where large battles and super have been used. Other cases like ihubs, cfc has refused to engage. There seems to be a contradiction here dont you think when you want to claim lack of comitment... cfc lost 3 ihubs. Did not bother with comiting to defence.
Yeah, because it still comes down to us showing up, you running away then us spending ages mining a structure. In some situations it just easier to replace the structure. The thing is, by choosing not to show up we have to make a choice that costs us. You don't. If you decided to not bother (which you do a lot) you lose absolutely nothing.

CBBOMBERMAN wrote:
If you are expecting them to drop supers on you then you are high. In war you fight using your strenght, not your weaknesses for the most part at least. Considering you are 50k coalition you should not be surprised... they are not here to make you have fun but to kill your coalition and maybe they have fun but not you if the can help it. Lets not forget that this has been a cfc strategy for years. Kinda funny when the same strategy is used against you now....i am enjoying the war.
Of course you're enjoying the war. The mechanics are biased in your favour, you have to commit nothing of value to achieve your goals and players like yourself enjoy easymode gameplay over challenging gameplay and balance. You guys have no interest is actually holding the sov you attack so the fact that sov mechanics are terrible and strongly biased in favour of people that don't actually want sov suits you.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#187 - 2016-03-22 08:28:51 UTC
If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#188 - 2016-03-22 08:34:59 UTC
Zappity wrote:
If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots.


how dare you question their right?! they are the SMA, they are entitled!!!

Just Add Water

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#189 - 2016-03-22 08:40:45 UTC
Zappity wrote:
If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots.
Because once again for the 700th time, it's not "difficult", otherwise we would no longer own the space, it's just boring. Even if we had just a couple of systems we'd still be under the same problem that firing a mining laser at a structure and chasing off people with no intention of taking the sov (and nothing actually committed to the fight) is what CCP class as content.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#190 - 2016-03-22 08:48:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Zappity wrote:
If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots.
Because once again for the 700th time, it's not "difficult", otherwise we would no longer own the space, it's just boring. Even if we had just a couple of systems we'd still be under the same problem that firing a mining laser at a structure and chasing off people with no intention of taking the sov (and nothing actually committed to the fight) is what CCP class as content.

Not so. If you had high population density in a smaller number of constellations you would not struggle to discourage attacks.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#191 - 2016-03-22 09:04:31 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Zappity wrote:
If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots.
Because once again for the 700th time, it's not "difficult", otherwise we would no longer own the space, it's just boring. Even if we had just a couple of systems we'd still be under the same problem that firing a mining laser at a structure and chasing off people with no intention of taking the sov (and nothing actually committed to the fight) is what CCP class as content.

Not so. If you had high population density in a smaller number of constellations you would not struggle to discourage attacks.
But we already don't struggle, hence us not losing our space. The problem once again is that the act of doing so is boring, meaning the best way to deal with sov is to simply not hold it. I'm really not sure what it is about basic English you are failing to grasp.

As for density, even after our loss of members we're already pretty tightly packed. We're at like 87 people per system, whereas you look at groups like BOT (18/system) Soviet-Union (15/system) Shadow of xXDEATHXx (12/system) and wondered why they aren't considered to be spread too thin. At the end of the day system density has nothing to do with it, the system requires no commitment from the attacker, so the reality is that if a non-sov holder wants to force a sov holder to have to deal with constant times, they can without any worry of losing anything of value. That's bad design.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#192 - 2016-03-22 09:27:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
We're at like 87 people per system, whereas you look at groups like BOT (18/system) Soviet-Union (15/system) Shadow of xXDEATHXx (12/system) and wondered why they aren't considered to be spread too thin. At the end of the day system density has nothing to do with it...


there must something wrong with you if you can't see what i can see from these info/statements of yours.

so if population density is irrelevant and every corp/alliance that you mentioned are being constantly trolled, why can't we see any other QQ theads? does it mean SMA is the whiniest?

now if my above statement about all of you are being attacked/trolled all the time is wrong, and infact people are just attacking you only, with having a much larger presence, why do you think people are doing it? what, players are not afraid of you? don't respect you? irritated? perhaps, jealous?




Just Add Water

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#193 - 2016-03-22 09:44:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Lucas Kell wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Zappity wrote:
If it is so difficult to defend why not drop a few constellations and consolidate? If you can't reliably defend your space you are either holding too much or don't have the right mix of industrial, PvE and PvP pilots.
Because once again for the 700th time, it's not "difficult", otherwise we would no longer own the space, it's just boring. Even if we had just a couple of systems we'd still be under the same problem that firing a mining laser at a structure and chasing off people with no intention of taking the sov (and nothing actually committed to the fight) is what CCP class as content.

Not so. If you had high population density in a smaller number of constellations you would not struggle to discourage attacks.
But we already don't struggle, hence us not losing our space. The problem once again is that the act of doing so is boring, meaning the best way to deal with sov is to simply not hold it. I'm really not sure what it is about basic English you are failing to grasp.

As for density, even after our loss of members we're already pretty tightly packed. We're at like 87 people per system, whereas you look at groups like BOT (18/system) Soviet-Union (15/system) Shadow of xXDEATHXx (12/system) and wondered why they aren't considered to be spread too thin. At the end of the day system density has nothing to do with it, the system requires no commitment from the attacker, so the reality is that if a non-sov holder wants to force a sov holder to have to deal with constant times, they can without any worry of losing anything of value. That's bad design.


Well I did a tour of Fade last night looking for a fight. I saw four SMA pilots, total, outside of staging. It was ridiculously deserted.

But the point is that if you are seeking an “interesting” way to defend your space, which I interpret as a PvP-based mechanic, then the best way to do it is to consolidate and diversify your players to the point where you can easily and quickly form a strong defence fleet. This means that the fleet doesn't have to fly all the way across the region.

A truly local defence fleet means that you don't have to do any entosis at all because the attackers don't manage to get a foothold. You form a fleet and kill the intruders. Interesting.

But it seems to me what you actually want is to not have to defend an entire region (plus a couple of extra constellations) with an alliance which would, if left to their own devices, not last even a week.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Xeno Szenn
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#194 - 2016-03-22 10:01:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Xeno Szenn
part of the problem may be the entosis module seemed to be glitched. http://imgur.com/a/sAHAy Goonswarm was kind enough to show us that if you start the cycle then just burn as long as your in range by the end of the cycle it still works. I never knew that was a thing before hopefuly ccp can clarify if this is intended or not. If it is it's definitely something that needs to be fixed. either way it wa sa blast guys and most of the fights seems to be a blast. I thionk it was 400 on 400 today at one point. this may need to be ballanced and next month we should have citdels and the cap changes to play with who knows what that will do. What a time to be alive.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#195 - 2016-03-22 10:32:22 UTC
Nat Silverguard wrote:
there must something wrong with you if you can't see what i can see from these info/statements of yours.

so if population density is irrelevant and every corp/alliance that you mentioned are being constantly trolled, why can't we see any other QQ theads? does it mean SMA is the whiniest?

now if my above statement about all of you are being attacked/trolled all the time is wrong, and infact people are just attacking you only, with having a much larger presence, why do you think people are doing it? what, players are not afraid of you? don't respect you? irritated? perhaps, jealous?
Shocked I think you've either misread or misunderstood something. Well either that or it's just you're farming at the mouth so much you can't see that you are contradicting yourself. Here' I'll simplify:

I've stated that mechanics are bad as attackers don't need to commit, meaning that they can keep defenders responding for eternity with no real cost. You've then gone on to claim that the issue is our population density. I've then shown there are significantly less dense sov holders not having these problems because attackers are not yet attacking them. This proves that your claims that our density (or lack thereof) is the issue is complete and utter horseshit.

Any group owning sov would have the same issue if an attacker chose to leverage the massive benefit the broken mechanics give them. You're only happy because it's us and your bias overrides any potential for objective views.

How do you even manage to dress yourself in the morning?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Xeno Szenn
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#196 - 2016-03-22 10:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Xeno Szenn
Any mechanic can be used to create an advantage. to be honest if i cared about space and could feild the numbers the imperium could it would be amazing. your small gang and solo guys hunting down entosis boats. forming fleets to kill t3d's and bigger fleets. a constant state of content brought to me without having to lift a finger. I would be happy. you guys have it all right now for fleets small gang options. big fights, and even cap and supper caps getting droped. Would you guys even fight like this without someone entosising something or creating a situation where fighting was a desired outcome for you?

I am honestly curious i know nothing about the internal poltics and ideasl about well any group really but for someone who loves pvp this is amazing. even losing a few intiys tonight to try and snipe an entosis ship was a blast and a learning experience.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#197 - 2016-03-22 10:44:26 UTC
Xeno Szenn wrote:
Any mechanic can be used to create an advantage. to be honest if i cared about space and could feild the numbers the imperium could it would be amazing. your small gang and solo guys hunting down entosis boats. forming fleets to kill t3d's and bigger fleets. a constant state of content brought to me without having to lift a finger. I would be happy. you guys have it all right now for fleets small gang options. big fights, and even cap and supper caps getting droped. Would you guys even fight like this without someone entosising something or creating a situation where fighting was a desired outcome for you?

I am honestly curious i know nothing about the internal poltics and ideasl about well any group really but for someone who loves pvp this is amazing. even losing a few intiys tonight to try and snipe an entosis ship was a blast and a learning experience.

I agree with you, this is great. But no one will believe that coming from me.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#198 - 2016-03-22 10:44:48 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Well I did a tour of Fade last night looking for a fight. I saw four SMA pilots, total, outside of staging. It was ridiculously deserted.
Probably. Considering there's no real reason to have anything but a skeleton crew running defense most of the time, many people are in other locations making isk coming back to sort out timers.

Zappity wrote:
But the point is that if you are seeking an “interesting” way to defend your space, which I interpret as a PvP-based mechanic, then the best way to do it is to consolidate and diversify your players to the point where you can easily and quickly form a strong defence fleet. This means that the fleet doesn't have to fly all the way across the region.
But what's the point of a "strong defence fleet"? There's no strong attack fleet to fight, and nothing even remotely encouraging attackers to form one, so all a strong defence fleet could do is watch entosis links cycling.

Zappity wrote:
A truly local defence fleet means that you don't have to do any entosis at all because the attackers don't manage to get a foothold. You form a fleet and kill the intruders. Interesting.
Except that's not what happens. We form a defense fleet, they run away and ping something else. Short of having a standing fleet guarding every possible timer - which is far worse than what we're actually doing - nothing will change, and either way, no fights will be generated because attackers don't have to commit anything to the fight.

Zappity wrote:
But it seems to me what you actually want is to not have to defend an entire region (plus a couple of extra constellations) with an alliance which would, if left to their own devices, not last even a week.
I'm fine with defending a region, I just want to defend it from players with enough committed to the attack that they actually see it through.

And yes, I'm sure that if SMA were left alone to fight a coalition of multiple groups, we would fail to do so - most alliances would. Thanks for pointing out that coalitions are a requirement for sov combat.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Xeno Szenn
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#199 - 2016-03-22 10:48:50 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Xeno Szenn wrote:
Any mechanic can be used to create an advantage. to be honest if i cared about space and could feild the numbers the imperium could it would be amazing. your small gang and solo guys hunting down entosis boats. forming fleets to kill t3d's and bigger fleets. a constant state of content brought to me without having to lift a finger. I would be happy. you guys have it all right now for fleets small gang options. big fights, and even cap and supper caps getting droped. Would you guys even fight like this without someone entosising something or creating a situation where fighting was a desired outcome for you?

I am honestly curious i know nothing about the internal poltics and ideasl about well any group really but for someone who loves pvp this is amazing. even losing a few intiys tonight to try and snipe an entosis ship was a blast and a learning experience.

I agree with you, this is great. But no one will believe that coming from me.



I belive you this is amazingly fun for me and i don;t have close to the numbers you guys do to work with. there's kill to be had everywhere and a fight just around the next corner. the citdels coming up next and cap changes are going to make things even more intersting and entertaining,
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#200 - 2016-03-22 11:48:01 UTC
Yeah as long as you can't potentially disable a citadel with an entosis link, that **** is ridiculous