These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hawk Aulmais
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#361 - 2016-04-02 08:24:08 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Hawk Aulmais wrote:
So #ccp we ran the numbers and in the past 14 days SMA has had to deal with ~200 hacking attempts. How many of these resulted in timers idk. Just goes to show its easier to attack than to defend. Can't save every system just due to the geography of some areas when 20 hackers are hitting at once.
Hold less space then. Its super simple.
Not that simple, they'd still hit every node they can resulting in likely the same amount of hacking attempts. It's been said multiple times over, but the fact hat we are still holding our space against a significantly larger number of enemies shows that we aren't overextended, but that still doesn't mean the mechanics we're all forced to deal with don't suck.




You've abandoned more than half your space...


sma has held the same amount of space. stop making it about "you have too much space" and just admit MBC is using the current meta to try and kill the cfc. yes we have pulled back since all of eve is pushing on us. but hey, GL holding all the "sov" you took since you will be faced with the same timer hell.
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#362 - 2016-04-02 08:46:00 UTC
Gloom skull Dethahal wrote:
I will add my voice to the many. Please, please reduce the number of sov vulnerability timers. Every day we log in, that's all we do is defend space. There's no time for anything else. I work and have a family life to enjoy.

At least with a paying job you get two days off. Take these vulnerability timers down to 3 days a week.

You'd developers must think there are hundreds of thousands of people playing this game. That or that we're all unemployed with nothing better to do. Reduce the timers for goodness sake.

Thanks


1: Have less sov
2: Don't be at war
3: Have less sov

Like really you have like 40 sov systems... why on earth do you need 40 sov systems for an alliance that has ~150 online players at any one time?
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#363 - 2016-04-02 14:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Darek Castigatus
Hawk Aulmais wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Hawk Aulmais wrote:
So #ccp we ran the numbers and in the past 14 days SMA has had to deal with ~200 hacking attempts. How many of these resulted in timers idk. Just goes to show its easier to attack than to defend. Can't save every system just due to the geography of some areas when 20 hackers are hitting at once.
Hold less space then. Its super simple.
Not that simple, they'd still hit every node they can resulting in likely the same amount of hacking attempts. It's been said multiple times over, but the fact hat we are still holding our space against a significantly larger number of enemies shows that we aren't overextended, but that still doesn't mean the mechanics we're all forced to deal with don't suck.




You've abandoned more than half your space...


sma has held the same amount of space. stop making it about "you have too much space" and just admit MBC is using the current meta to try and kill the cfc. yes we have pulled back since all of eve is pushing on us. but hey, GL holding all the "sov" you took since you will be faced with the same timer hell.


Thats the beauty of a coalition of people with widely differeing ideas what they want from the campaign. People who want sov will take it, those who dont will just turn up for the fights like we've been doing all the time. Im going to say again whats been said elsewhere - you have tons of defensive timers because you still held to the dominion era thinking of 'lets own a load of sov we dont need' even after you ditched a lot of it due to new mechanics.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#364 - 2016-04-02 16:39:54 UTC
Hawk Aulmais wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Hawk Aulmais wrote:
So #ccp we ran the numbers and in the past 14 days SMA has had to deal with ~200 hacking attempts. How many of these resulted in timers idk. Just goes to show its easier to attack than to defend. Can't save every system just due to the geography of some areas when 20 hackers are hitting at once.
Hold less space then. Its super simple.
Not that simple, they'd still hit every node they can resulting in likely the same amount of hacking attempts. It's been said multiple times over, but the fact hat we are still holding our space against a significantly larger number of enemies shows that we aren't overextended, but that still doesn't mean the mechanics we're all forced to deal with don't suck.




You've abandoned more than half your space...


sma has held the same amount of space. stop making it about "you have too much space" and just admit MBC is using the current meta to try and kill the cfc. yes we have pulled back since all of eve is pushing on us. but hey, GL holding all the "sov" you took since you will be faced with the same timer hell.




We don't want the space. We just don't want you living in it.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#365 - 2016-04-03 09:18:48 UTC
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Thats the beauty of a coalition of people with widely differeing ideas what they want from the campaign. People who want sov will take it, those who dont will just turn up for the fights like we've been doing all the time. Im going to say again whats been said elsewhere - you have tons of defensive timers because you still held to the dominion era thinking of 'lets own a load of sov we dont need' even after you ditched a lot of it due to new mechanics.
And I'm going to say again what's been said in this very thread. You're wrong. If we had less space we'd just have more timers in that space instead on in border space. Setting up timers is incredibly easy which is why MBC are doing in then cheering continuously because it's how they pretend they are achieving something. If we had too much space, we wouldn't be able to defend it like we have been. Additionally the russian groups have one tenth the number of players per system, so if anyone's overstretched it's certainly not us.

The real problem here is that you're unwilling to actually be honest about it so you just chant the party line. If one day you choose to settle down in some space you'll suddenly realise we were right all along and you'll be back here asking why you have to go deal with timers every day when you just want to play a game for entertainment.

The bit to watch is when this war is over. See it's only fun because you have two large groups of people going nuts at each other (just like dominion sov pushed for) except now the mechanics are even boring but people put up with them to achieve the goals. Once one side wins and there's no longer these massive battles, sub numbers are going to drop like a rock because nobody wants to actually deal with the fozziesov mechanics for the sake of it, they are just a means to an end. Once the big war was over dominion mechanics mean people could enjoy their victory, but now since solo players can come and set up timers it just means you get the joy of going back to dealing with timers and zero fights for eternity.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#366 - 2016-04-03 09:23:12 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
We don't want the space. We just don't want you living in it.
Which isn't what the sov mechanics are designed to facilitate. It's an ownership mechanics and you should need to commit to it because you actually want it, not just be able to effectively gank space. See you like it because you get to use it against goons, but remember the same mechanics are what work for all players, so nothing stops people just picking any old target and going "You don't have your space anymore, have fun dealing with bad mechanics trying to defend it and laser it back".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#367 - 2016-04-03 10:00:31 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
We don't want the space. We just don't want you living in it.
Which isn't what the sov mechanics are designed to facilitate. It's an ownership mechanics and you should need to commit to it because you actually want it, not just be able to effectively gank space. See you like it because you get to use it against goons, but remember the same mechanics are what work for all players, so nothing stops people just picking any old target and going "You don't have your space anymore, have fun dealing with bad mechanics trying to defend it and laser it back".




If you want to hold space, you have to attack it first. We're just attacking it and making it inhospitable for you to live there. Because your leadership has pissed off so many people to the point where they just want to burn it down.


See, how it works for normal people is that you have space to make money, so if you take space, you have to use it to make money. Since you pissed off IWI, we can literally just burn your space and not have to worry about the isk thanks to 1ronbank and his merry band of space misers.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#368 - 2016-04-03 11:03:25 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
If you want to hold space, you have to attack it first. We're just attacking it and making it inhospitable for you to live there. Because your leadership has pissed off so many people to the point where they just want to burn it down.
Cry more. The only reason our leadership has pissed people off is because they've managed to accomplish something you guys would have no hope of. The fact that you guys are so delusional that you are acting like you've already won makes it all the more amusing. The only bad thing about the entire war is that one of the mechanics we have to deal with consists entirely of mining structures and so is boring. If by some miracle you guys actually manage to stay together long enough to win, all you have to look forward to is us moving to NPC space then using the exact same advantage you currently enjoy to stop over everyone remotely nearby.

Aiwha wrote:
See, how it works for normal people is that you have space to make money, so if you take space, you have to use it to make money. Since you pissed off IWI, we can literally just burn your space and not have to worry about the isk thanks to 1ronbank and his merry band of space misers.
Honestly, the fact that an RMT scam machine is pouring ISK handed to them by dumb people into providing me content instead of into illicit ISK sales just makes me giddy. I know the sad truth is that eventually he'll stop and go back to selling ISK for cash full time, but until then it kinda feels like we're helping the game by redistributing this wealth legitimately. You're welcome EVE.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#369 - 2016-04-03 11:35:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
If you want to hold space, you have to attack it first. We're just attacking it and making it inhospitable for you to live there. Because your leadership has pissed off so many people to the point where they just want to burn it down.
Cry more. The only reason our leadership has pissed people off is because they've managed to accomplish something you guys would have no hope of. The fact that you guys are so delusional that you are acting like you've already won makes it all the more amusing. The only bad thing about the entire war is that one of the mechanics we have to deal with consists entirely of mining structures and so is boring. If by some miracle you guys actually manage to stay together long enough to win, all you have to look forward to is us moving to NPC space then using the exact same advantage you currently enjoy to stop over everyone remotely nearby.

Aiwha wrote:
See, how it works for normal people is that you have space to make money, so if you take space, you have to use it to make money. Since you pissed off IWI, we can literally just burn your space and not have to worry about the isk thanks to 1ronbank and his merry band of space misers.
Honestly, the fact that an RMT scam machine is pouring ISK handed to them by dumb people into providing me content instead of into illicit ISK sales just makes me giddy. I know the sad truth is that eventually he'll stop and go back to selling ISK for cash full time, but until then it kinda feels like we're helping the game by redistributing this wealth legitimately. You're welcome EVE.




Being a wuss and bluing all your neighbors so you can PVE all day is a great accomplishment? That's highsec. You're bragging about living in highsec.




If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space?

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#370 - 2016-04-03 13:25:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Aiwha wrote:
Being a wuss and bluing all your neighbors so you can PVE all day is a great accomplishment? That's highsec. You're bragging about living in highsec.
I don't PVE, but nice try. I like the version of highsec where there's continuous daily raids from multiple groups for several years and no concord to guarantee your safety.

Aiwha wrote:
If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space?
Comprehension not your thing huh? Simply put, shooting ships is fun, firing mining lasers at structures is not.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ArmyOfMe
African Atomic.
#371 - 2016-04-03 13:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ArmyOfMe
Lucas Kell wrote:
Again why should you not have to defend your space if it only takes 1 ship to attack then it only takes 1 ship to defend. Why should every single player of any size be able to force a defensive response?

Its not like you guys dont form blobs to kill roamers anyways....

Does the new sov system suck? yes, even i think so, but its still nice to see smaller alliances be able to disrupt bigger ones.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
ArmyOfMe
African Atomic.
#372 - 2016-04-03 13:35:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ArmyOfMe
Lucas Kell wrote:
Xeno Szenn wrote:
It’s a buff for the defender because now they only have to worry about being attacked a few hours a day instead of every second of the day.
Except that was never the case, since you had timers for sov in the old system. You actually know what the old system entailed, right?

Depends on which of the sov sytstems you are reffering to, you do know that, right? Blink



Thanks[/quote]
Lucas Kell wrote:
What I don't understand is why some people think mechanics should be changed to stop other people playing in a way they don't like.

Shocked
ummmm, you do realise the irony of this one right?

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#373 - 2016-04-03 13:47:59 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space?

Man, you are making Lucas (and other goon members in this thread) look really better than you. Is that really what are you trying to achieve? Even me (hater for goons for YEARS and person who left 2 good alliances just because they joined goon side) find myself agreeing with their points.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#374 - 2016-04-03 14:09:00 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Does the new sov system suck? yes, even i think so, but its still nice to see smaller alliances be able to disrupt bigger ones.
Which I agree with, but the smaller alliances should still have to commit something to it.

ArmyOfMe wrote:
Depends on which of the sov sytstems you are reffering to, you do know that, right? BlinkIn context he's saying it's a buff over the previous system, not the original hacked together sov system.

[quote=ArmyOfMe]ummmm, you do realise the irony of this one right?
No, not really. I want good, entertaining mechanics in place, so that people who want big groups can play in big groups, people who want small groups can play in small groups and people who want solo can play solo and there's a good mix of interaction between all of them. But what many people want from fozziesov is a way for small groups to stomp all over big groups until big groups don't exist.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#375 - 2016-04-03 14:16:47 UTC
When a coalition of members outnumbers the CFC I don't think that's a small group stomping on a big group.

It's a big group stomping on a big group.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Leonid Ragulin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#376 - 2016-04-03 14:36:24 UTC
I think the problem here is the number of timers that can co-exist. 3 timers per system, around 6 systems per constellation, that means each system can have sites for 18 different timers. What is happening is every timer is getting troll-reinforced, and the attackers are only following through with a few at a time. Please dont just throw hate on CFC/Imperium, anyone with a brain knows that as soon as they lose Branch, Tenal and Tribute, every single timer in those systems will be troll-reinforced 23/7 by them and the annoyance will be on the other side.

As a solution, the number of timers needs to go down, and the possibility of multiple alliances owning structures in the same system needs to go. TCU's as a seperate entity are just a pointless mechanic. So:

1) Go back to the system where the ihub acts as a buffer to sov. Until you kill the ihub, you cant reinforce other structures in the system (apart from station services, that mechanic stays the same)

2) The station/outpost and the tcu cannot coexist. In systems where both exist, the tcu blows up, and the ownership of the station determines who has sov. In non-station systems, the tcu determines sov, and if the sov owner builds an outpost, the tcu blows up.

So, the new mechanic to capture a system is either:
reinforce ihub > kill ihub > reinforce station > freeport station > win freeport capture event, or
reinforce ihub > kill ihub >reinforce tcu > kill tcu > online own tcu

When stations are got rid of and non-soveriegn citadels become the only dockables, the owner of the old station gets a TCU back and TCUs become the only final soveriegnty structure. We then get a nice split - entosis is for soverignty, guns are for structures.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#377 - 2016-04-03 14:45:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Being a wuss and bluing all your neighbors so you can PVE all day is a great accomplishment? That's highsec. You're bragging about living in highsec.
I don't PVE, but nice try. I like the version of highsec where there's continuous daily raids from multiple groups for several years and no concord to guarantee your safety.

Aiwha wrote:
If you love the content so much, why are you whining about having to defend your space?
Comprehension not your thing huh? Simply put, shooting ships is fun, firing mining lasers at structures is not.



Oh, so that's why you guys like to pve so much.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#378 - 2016-04-03 19:32:11 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
When a coalition of members outnumbers the CFC I don't think that's a small group stomping on a big group.

It's a big group stomping on a big group.
But this thread wasn't put up talking about the big group, it was talking about the small groups and how easy and low risk it is for an aggressor regardless of size. Big group vs big group is the natural evolution of that with the big aggressor able to press that advantage.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#379 - 2016-04-03 20:04:40 UTC
The point of the new sov system is to reduce single-point conflicts. That goal was accomplished.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#380 - 2016-04-03 21:00:09 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
When a coalition of members outnumbers the CFC I don't think that's a small group stomping on a big group.

It's a big group stomping on a big group.
But this thread wasn't put up talking about the big group, it was talking about the small groups and how easy and low risk it is for an aggressor regardless of size. Big group vs big group is the natural evolution of that with the big aggressor able to press that advantage.




Its plenty risky. Its also risky to own space.


Sanity is fun leaving the body.