EVE General Discussion

Your idea of a successful sov system is one that no one wants to live in?

No my idea of a successful sov system is one that doesn't outright focus on and encourage griefing with infinite safety for entrenched large groups.
When a new mechanic is biased toward existing powers, it can't do anything more than ultimately fail.
No-one but a large group will be able to successfully attack another large group, thing is, they won't fight each other while there are smaller groups to harrass.

The only thing Fozziesov will offer is easy griefing of any smaller unaligned alliance - Much the same as what we have now except with a magic wand instead of supers.

What if point is to enable griefing for hating highseccers? Silly to assume CCP not knowing it enables constant bombardement of notifications. Seeing this way, it makes sense. Highseccers can GRRRR GOONS and keep entosing everything.

Love those who multi quote, especially those who make absolutely no sense or just choose not to respond without thinking..

1) No it won't, it will either lay unclaimed or become nothing more than greifing lands for the entrenched immovable neighbours.

2) Not if the goals of the original blog are relevant - When a mechanic favours the existing meta as this one does it leaves no room for change - The large groups still won't fight each other, so essentially nothing changes.
Capital ships don't come into it.

3) Read what it says - You really can't be that silly as to misunderstand it.
If that is "working as intended" all of this is for nothing. Fozzie and his team have just wasted months of their time to achieve nothing.
Big groups not fighting each other but rolling smaller groups is not balanced game play. It is also not sustainable as eventually you run out of targets and end up with what we had a few months ago - Stagnancy.
Nobody (except maybe Fozzie) could believe the current meta of untouchable large groups that don't fight each other is good for the game.

4) Not everyone, only smaller unaligned groups, so by that logic - Eve is already dead and Fozziesov will be the last nail in the coffin.
-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --

Manipulation is always present. Buying anything changes the price. Pick up an economic text. Any from the last three centuries will do. You can play how you want, just don't expect to get what you want just because it worked in the past.

Firstly, I'm neither a bigot or a slow learner. I simply disagree with your opinions, assumptions and ill conceived proposals.

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of others opinions. I'm not intolerant, I just think that your opinion is wrong and I make no bones about it.

I'm open to revising my opinion on presentation of objective, not subjective, evidence that contradicts it. As it stands you've failed to be objective about anything at all. You see what you want to see and ignore or attack everything that doesn't fit with your agenda; you're not prepared to revise your opinion at all, and totally unwilling to admit that you may be wrong.

Which of those behaviours fits the definition of bigot?

That's your opinion based on your subjective interpretation of the data, not a fact; know the difference.

I'd love to see your evidence that PCU has a strong correlation with subs. There are multiple accounts that are subbed but rarely if ever logged in, despite the introduction of services for PLEX this is probably still true for certain skillsets.

I never said that June was the worst month, I merely stated that it is a part of a season that is traditionally quiet.

Input broadcasting is no longer a thing in Eve, because it's now a bannable offence. Prior to the changes in the EULA with regards to input broadcasting it was very much a thing, CCP even provided a graph that shows a massive falloff in the activities of multiboxers post change.

Now onto the nice chart and figures you so kindly provided.

My subjective interpretation is as follows.
Approx 29% are professionals, who do lots of PvP
Approx 23% are entrepreneurs, who do some PvP
Approx 8% are aggressors, who do lots of PvP
Approx 15% are social, who do a little PvP
Approx 25% are traditionalists, who do a little PvP

Ergo my subjective interpretation of the data indicates that approx 37% of players do lots of PvP, approx another 23% of players do some PvP; not as much as the previous 37% but certainly more than the social and traditional groups.
That makes approx 60% of players who participate in PvP to a reasonable extent when compared to the remaining approx 40% who do little or no PvP.

I'm willing to admit that my interpretation is coloured by my beliefs and opinions, are you man/woman enough to do the same?

TL;DR: I'm not arguing with CCPs data, which is objective, I'm arguing with your interpretation of it, which is not.

How's he going to hang out with Jeff in lowsec and be in highsec at the same time with EVERYONE else?
Which part of that message is very clear?

Yes, your presentation is hilariously bad

Funnily enough, this time last year Dinsdale was claiming the Crius release signalled the Highsec Apocalypse Rapture™ so... maybe highsec needs repopulating? Or did it turn out be a load of hysterical nonsense?

Yes, I will have to agree with you, these changes coming may allow smaller/insignificant alliance to grab some sov.
However, to keep their SOV space, lets assume they have to fight for it. To fight for it, they need resources.
So with the recent changes to jump range and fatigue, do you every wonder if a smaller alliance will be able to hold on to their SOV once their BIGGER ex-landlords comes knocking on their door?

And your argument crumbles as "participating in PvP" is non-consensual. According to you, a freighter pilot who gets ganked is "participating in PvP", but I have some doubts that he logged in with that purpose.

Arguably, and by CCPs definition of PvP, if that freighter is hauling it is engaged in a PvP activity.

Logging into a game that is almost exclusively promoted, and recognised as a PvP game, which in Eve has myriad forms including shooting at spaceships, is implied consent to participate in PvP, regardless of your original intentions.

Implied consent is when surrounding circumstances exist (logging into a game recognised as a PvP game) which would lead a reasonable person (any other player also logged into the same game) to believe that this consent (to participate in PvP, mutual or otherwise) had been given, although no direct, express or explicit words of agreement had been uttered (in Eve terms things such as going suspect to bait people or engaging in a duel would count as direct, express or explicit agreement).

So no, my argument doesn't crumble at all.