These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

EVE's summer expansion better focus on sovereignty
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2013-01-25 17:48:01 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:

Did I say a new sov system should be based on timers? No, I did not.


You haven't said anything about sov, you've just decided to howl about power projection in a thread that has very little to do with it.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
fukier
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2013-01-25 17:52:01 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Did I say a new sov system should be based on timers? No, I did not.


You haven't said anything about sov, you've just decided to howl about power projection in a thread that has very little to do with it.



They go hand in hand brosef
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#323 - 2013-01-25 17:55:30 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Did I say a new sov system should be based on timers? No, I did not.


You haven't said anything about sov, you've just decided to howl about power projection in a thread that has very little to do with it.



The op is just as much a complaint that null sec has been boring with no war, than it is about any specific issue with sov.

There is precious little coming from any players as to how to change sov mechanics, such that players will actually decide to fight wars, instead of all becoming friends and carebearing together.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#324 - 2013-01-25 17:58:55 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
if i'm a large entity, why would i send all of my caps? i'm a large entity, a fraction of my capitals could wipe them out since they've got no cap support for 6 hours and i don't have to worry about being engaged by their cap fleet.

what strategy i employ is besides the point, the point is every example i have given proves that your idea of some kind of time lockout only hurts small entities and your only answer to that so far has been "lol u r crap fc" basically.

please, for the sake of the kittens, point out HOW a time lockout helps small entities? because i've pointed out, several times, that it simply doesn't.

You have proved my point with your very example. Currently with no time bottleneck on force projection, this is what the typical power block FC says, when encountering, well any thing, any time, any where on the map:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk

The entire reason they do this is because there is no repercussion to it when it comes to defending vast amounts of territory. If someone tries something on your far most east side of your empire while you are on the far most west side, you can simply zip right back to them no problem. Easy.

Now if moving ships around, especially capitals, involved more strategic decision making due to no longer being able to zip across the entire game in minutes, we would see something very different happen. For one, anyone still wanting to move EVERYONE to one part of space to fight some invader would leave the rest of their territory wide open for other invaders to take over. So, the vast amount of space would be downsized to something more appropriate for a force who does not likes to put all of their eggs in one basket.

You keep trying to debunk this by pulling out things from the current sov system, like timers, when we all know any new sov system should be based on usage of the space. There is many issues with null right now. Everything from industry, power projection to dare I say; the worst null system should be more valuable than the best low or high sec system.
Ustrello
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#325 - 2013-01-25 18:07:14 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Did I say a new sov system should be based on timers? No, I did not.


You haven't said anything about sov, you've just decided to howl about power projection in a thread that has very little to do with it.

But isn't that what he always does?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2013-01-25 18:17:08 UTC
Ustrello wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Did I say a new sov system should be based on timers? No, I did not.


You haven't said anything about sov, you've just decided to howl about power projection in a thread that has very little to do with it.

But isn't that what he always does?


Yes hence why I think we should have a CFC policy that all Marlona Sky posts get responded to with "HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR."

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2013-01-25 18:17:58 UTC
fukier wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Did I say a new sov system should be based on timers? No, I did not.


You haven't said anything about sov, you've just decided to howl about power projection in a thread that has very little to do with it.



They go hand in hand brosef


They don't mr. no sov holding person.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2013-01-25 18:21:10 UTC
Cearain wrote:

The op is just as much a complaint that null sec has been boring with no war, than it is about any specific issue with sov.

There is precious little coming from any players as to how to change sov mechanics, such that players will actually decide to fight wars, instead of all becoming friends and carebearing together.


Agreed, but howling about power projection and trying to make it look like you are white-knighting the little guy has nothing to do with fixing sov.

We need reasons to fight that outweigh the terrible sov system that is in place or a total overhaul of sov. I'd personally like both.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#329 - 2013-01-25 18:27:24 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:

You have proved my point with your very example. Currently with no time bottleneck on force projection, this is what the typical power block FC says, when encountering, well any thing, any time, any where on the map:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk

The entire reason they do this is because there is no repercussion to it when it comes to defending vast amounts of territory. If someone tries something on your far most east side of your empire while you are on the far most west side, you can simply zip right back to them no problem. Easy.

Now if moving ships around, especially capitals, involved more strategic decision making due to no longer being able to zip across the entire game in minutes, we would see something very different happen. For one, anyone still wanting to move EVERYONE to one part of space to fight some invader would leave the rest of their territory wide open for other invaders to take over. So, the vast amount of space would be downsized to something more appropriate for a force who does not likes to put all of their eggs in one basket.

You keep trying to debunk this by pulling out things from the current sov system, like timers, when we all know any new sov system should be based on usage of the space. There is many issues with null right now. Everything from industry, power projection to dare I say; the worst null system should be more valuable than the best low or high sec system.


I'll speak in simple terms here, nerfing power projection makes null more miserable for the people who already live there and further breaks the system. I see you've stopped trying to white-knight the little guy so at least you dropped the charade.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Dave Stark
#330 - 2013-01-25 18:29:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
if i'm a large entity, why would i send all of my caps? i'm a large entity, a fraction of my capitals could wipe them out since they've got no cap support for 6 hours and i don't have to worry about being engaged by their cap fleet.

what strategy i employ is besides the point, the point is every example i have given proves that your idea of some kind of time lockout only hurts small entities and your only answer to that so far has been "lol u r crap fc" basically.

please, for the sake of the kittens, point out HOW a time lockout helps small entities? because i've pointed out, several times, that it simply doesn't.

You have proved my point with your very example. Currently with no time bottleneck on force projection, this is what the typical power block FC says, when encountering, well any thing, any time, any where on the map:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk

The entire reason they do this is because there is no repercussion to it when it comes to defending vast amounts of territory. If someone tries something on your far most east side of your empire while you are on the far most west side, you can simply zip right back to them no problem. Easy.

Now if moving ships around, especially capitals, involved more strategic decision making due to no longer being able to zip across the entire game in minutes, we would see something very different happen. For one, anyone still wanting to move EVERYONE to one part of space to fight some invader would leave the rest of their territory wide open for other invaders to take over. So, the vast amount of space would be downsized to something more appropriate for a force who does not likes to put all of their eggs in one basket.

You keep trying to debunk this by pulling out things from the current sov system, like timers, when we all know any new sov system should be based on usage of the space. There is many issues with null right now. Everything from industry, power projection to dare I say; the worst null system should be more valuable than the best low or high sec system.


no, i didn't. because i haven't provided any points that deal with a no bottleneck force projection.

there's also no repercussion to steamrolling a smaller entity even with a bottleneck, as i pointed out several damn times. (edit: oh, aside from maybe the whole 0.0 becoming more risk averse which i pointed out several posts ago)

now, your lack of arguments just prove to every one force projection needing a bottle neck is complete **** because it doesn't solve anything.

who cares if something different would happen, stop changing the subject. the subject is this bottleneck should help small entities. it does NOT. prove it does. stop wasting every one's time. (side note, i didn't mention sov timers once in this "force projection" crap)

prove it, or we can just call your idea crap and ******** because it doesn't do what you said it would do.

in closing: a time bottleneck on force projection hurts the little guy and/or makes 0.0 more risk averse. your idea is ba.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#331 - 2013-01-25 18:31:57 UTC
"We got kicked out of our sov, so let's just try to make the game as frustrating and unfun as possible for the people who did it."

The sad thing is you could do this yourself, in game, but you're lobbying to have CCP do the work for you.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2013-01-25 18:35:57 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

The sad thing is you could do this yourself, in game, but you're lobbying to have CCP do the work for you.


NCdotte - doing it like AFK miners ~2013~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Random Majere
Rogue Fleet
#333 - 2013-01-25 18:52:46 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
We need reasons to fight that outweigh the terrible sov system...


Yes...Lets help Goons find reasons to fight...cause they sure are good in finding reasons not to.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2013-01-25 18:54:29 UTC
Random Majere wrote:
I was kicked out of my space and am very bitter about it so please CCP leave the sov system in a horrible state.


I fixed that for you.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Random Majere
Rogue Fleet
#335 - 2013-01-25 19:17:03 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Random Majere wrote:
I was kicked out of my space and am very bitter about it so please CCP leave the sov system in a horrible state.


I fixed that for you.


My friend, I cannot be bitter...cause I was not with Nulli at the time. Also, why should I be bitter in seeying my allliance loose its space. Disapointed yes...but bitter no.

This is a game...not my life.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#336 - 2013-01-25 19:18:35 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Random Majere wrote:
I was kicked out of my space and am very bitter about it so please CCP leave the sov system in a horrible state.

I fixed that for you.

I think he'll get his wish, sov will remain terrible for quite some time.

Boat, of course, is also happy with structure-based conflicts.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#337 - 2013-01-25 19:34:49 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i didn't. because i haven't provided any points that deal with a no bottleneck force projection.

there's also no repercussion to steamrolling a smaller entity even with a bottleneck, as i pointed out several damn times. (edit: oh, aside from maybe the whole 0.0 becoming more risk averse which i pointed out several posts ago)

now, your lack of arguments just prove to every one force projection needing a bottle neck is complete **** because it doesn't solve anything.

who cares if something different would happen, stop changing the subject. the subject is this bottleneck should help small entities. it does NOT. prove it does. stop wasting every one's time. (side note, i didn't mention sov timers once in this "force projection" crap)

prove it, or we can just call your idea crap and ******** because it doesn't do what you said it would do.

in closing: a time bottleneck on force projection hurts the little guy and/or makes 0.0 more risk averse. your idea is ba.

You proved a time bottle neck on force projection would help the little guys last page by stating you would send 45 capitals instead of EVERYTHING to deal with one little guy. As you stated earlier, you could send a massive blob to deal with one little guy, but it would open up the rest of your territory for other little guys to exploit.

Why do you keep shoving your head into the sand like an Ostrich to this?
Dave Stark
#338 - 2013-01-25 19:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Marlona Sky wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i didn't. because i haven't provided any points that deal with a no bottleneck force projection.

there's also no repercussion to steamrolling a smaller entity even with a bottleneck, as i pointed out several damn times. (edit: oh, aside from maybe the whole 0.0 becoming more risk averse which i pointed out several posts ago)

now, your lack of arguments just prove to every one force projection needing a bottle neck is complete **** because it doesn't solve anything.

who cares if something different would happen, stop changing the subject. the subject is this bottleneck should help small entities. it does NOT. prove it does. stop wasting every one's time. (side note, i didn't mention sov timers once in this "force projection" crap)

prove it, or we can just call your idea crap and ******** because it doesn't do what you said it would do.

in closing: a time bottleneck on force projection hurts the little guy and/or makes 0.0 more risk averse. your idea is ba.

You proved a time bottle neck on force projection would help the little guys last page by stating you would send 45 capitals instead of EVERYTHING to deal with one little guy. As you stated earlier, you could send a massive blob to deal with one little guy, but it would open up the rest of your territory for other little guys to exploit.

Why do you keep shoving your head into the sand like an Ostrich to this?


actually, i said i'd wipe them off the map with 45 capitals (also you're naive if you think big alliances wouldn't just buy/build more capitals and have one sitting at home for defence, and one they can deploy offensively). i fail to see how "being wiped off the map" helps them.
again, a time limit on jump drives does not help the little guy, it actually hurts them by not being able to move their capitals to where they are needed when a larger entity can just use other ships to totally negate the whole timer.

i'm still going to send a blob, that didn't change.

honestly, every time you say "you proved...." i did prove something, and it's always that your idea is terrible.

also i stick my head in the sand because YOU keep trying to discuss a point that we are NOT discussing. we haven't finished discussing (read: you ignoring your idea is bad) how the little guy gets any "help" from this idea of adding a cooldown to jump drives. when you address that point, then we can discuss the tactical implications of a random third party.

actually let me make it easy for you. finish this sentence "adding a cooldown to jump drives help the little guys because...."
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#339 - 2013-01-25 20:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowschild
Lets pretend for a moment the goons had no sov, but wanted it. Would the current mechanics stop them from taking it?
Answer honestly:

The easier you can take sov away, the easier it is for you to lose it. Then getting threads poping up to change it to something else.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#340 - 2013-01-25 20:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Alavaria Fera wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Random Majere wrote:
I was kicked out of my space and am very bitter about it so please CCP leave the sov system in a horrible state.

I fixed that for you.

I think he'll get his wish, sov will remain terrible for quite some time.

Boat, of course, is also happy with structure-based conflicts.


All structures will shout for joy and begin an EVE holiday the day DBRB retires. They will no longer be forced to hide behind their reinforcement timers and will finally be free.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133