These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Share your experiences with Fozziesov!

First post First post
Author
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#181 - 2015-08-05 13:07:29 UTC
Grouchy Smurf wrote:
Lets take it one step at a time:

Icycle, would you have a problem if the Entosis links were costed at 1 billion isk?


Yep. Whats your point?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#182 - 2015-08-05 13:09:53 UTC
Icycle wrote:
Grouchy Smurf wrote:
Lets take it one step at a time:

Icycle, would you have a problem if the Entosis links were costed at 1 billion isk?


Yep. Whats your point?


His point, from what I can tell anyway, is that you object to anything that would require the attacker to have a commitment above functionally zero.

Which means that you're just in it to troll, not actually participate in sov warfare.

Hell, calling it "sov warfare" is an oxymoron at this point, since from what I can tell CCP has actually managed to find something even more toxic than faction "warfare".

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Grouchy Smurf
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#183 - 2015-08-05 13:10:48 UTC
Why do you find that a commitment of 1 billion ISK for a module that is used to capture space at alliance level is bothersome?

Don't worry, we are taking it one step at a time. We will reach the overall point.
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#184 - 2015-08-05 13:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Awkward
Icycle wrote:
Falin Whalen wrote:
You know that a system is bad when mining is more rewarding game play than chasing away sov trolls. At least you get something with mining.


You guys are obsessed with the word "trolling"
What you regard as "trolling" to me is a genuine attack/herass to an IHUB, TCU or a Station.
If you dont want to protect it around the clock in space that you dont live well thats your issue but if you do want to protect it then you cant blame it on CCP or call it trolling just cos you decide to defend a system that is really far away from your home systems and that you dont actually bother living in it. To me its all your fault. If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple.


The main goal of the new sov mechanic is that you can take weakly defendet or undefendet sov as a smaller entity. I gues we can agree that this goal has been achieved.

If you attack sov with the purpose of keeping (and defending) it, then thats not trolling.

If you attack sov without the intention to keep it or even provoke a fight but just to anoy the sov holders, well thats prety clear trolling.

So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#185 - 2015-08-05 13:14:06 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:

So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal.


To any of them actually paying attention to this thread, (bloody unlikely, I know, since they have ignored feedback on this for so long anyway), the answer to this question is "hugely increase the CPU requirements for the entosis modules".

Nothing below a battlecruiser should be able to fit these things without sacrificing lots of fitting room. A novel idea would be to make it apply to the battlecruiser's command links bonus, in fact. That'd give that ship class a much needed shot in the arm.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#186 - 2015-08-05 13:48:06 UTC
Icycle wrote:
So its trolling to attack and not take sov when all I do is gorrilla warfare? Really? Its not herassment its not gorrilla warfare, its not a drive by shoot out. Its trolling? You got the definition wrong. Nothing is black and white. There is also grey! Is that how close minded you are?
It's Guerrilla, not gorrilla. And that type of warfare is still strategic. It's techniques for smaller, less-organised groups to attack a larger group with the aim still being strategic victory. What you're doing is ignoring the strategic victory and looking to be no more than an annoyance, relying on the mechanics to keep you safe from harm. You may enjoy it, but it's bad game design. Game conflict should be fun on both sides, regardless of who is winning.

Icycle wrote:
MOA is very small entity yes it responsable for the greatest number of kills of CFC. So we dont kill? And you can ask anyone, we always try and kill stuff and when we get blobbed we still try and kill stuff.
Gevlon may suggest that's true, but I'm not certain of that. A lot of the time you are tagging along with other groups. You may get more damage in by targeting the most blingy ships, but a lot of the time you wouldn't even be in the fight if another group wasn't there covering you.

Icycle wrote:
Definition of extending is having sufficient numbers to cover the defence of the system. If you get constantly attacked in a system by 20 and you only got 5, well...you are over gunned.
Once again, it's not that there's not sufficient numbers, it's that having to defend against trollceptors is boring, even if you are already in system.

Icycle wrote:
I am going to repeat myself. FozzySov is meant to give a small bonus to smaller entities to be able to face a larger one. Its only a very small plus. You still got to get it to reinforce it, which is hard or destroy it after reinforced which is very hard to do if you are small and fighting the larger entity. So in my book unless you pull an ace, the smaller entity will find it very hard to do so. This is bad news for some blue balling and vast of empty and unused space. I think CCP should have done this ages ago!
Small bonus. What CCP have done is gone too far. And I know you like it, you guys like a lot of things that would kill the game because you're too busy crying about doughnuts and fapping over your overlord giving you pocket money to rationally look at game mechanics as they apply to the game as a whole. You're selfish. You'll happily see the game made intentionally boring for sov holders just so you can have some short-lived feeling of victory.

Icycle wrote:
Why should you get to keep space you dont use? Why should not be allowed to be contested? Why should we not destroy this blue ball? All of these are stopping and making null boring. Its time to inject some dynamics into the game, not the passive system we had in the past. Its null, and its meant to be chaotic in the front lines. The front lines should move back and forth and note remain the same.
LOL, and you are complaining about repeating yourself? We're not talking about just space that's not being used. Trollceptors are a pain in the ass even in space being used. Chasing cheap ships designed to evade is boring and thus a bad thing for CCP to encourage. How can you not get that into your skull?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#187 - 2015-08-05 13:48:20 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
... So Whack-a-Mole sov really is more accurate than occupancy
I am glad my description is catching on.
Now, to sharpen this up consider this:

  • Make a fleet.
  • Put 6 ships in a system, 3x ECM and 3x wand ship
  • Spread those teams of 6 across a region.
  • Spread out some scouts.
  • ECM your own ships off the structures when defenders appear.
  • Cloak up.
  • Activate another team.


Make the defenders run in circles, trying to whack teams.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#188 - 2015-08-05 13:53:05 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Captain Awkward wrote:


So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal.


Exactly. If the defenders are spread too thin to show up, then they lose the space. If the defenders do not want to fight, they lose the space. If the attackers don't really want to take the space, there should not be much they can do.

If the defenders do not show up at all, then the attackers can Entosis their sov just as easily in a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship as they can in an Interceptor.

If the defenders do show up, then having a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship on field is more likely to result in a fight. Fights are a good thing. They are, after all, pretty much the whole point of this game.

The sovereignty system should reward people who are willing to fight, not people who do not want to fight. This simple rule should apply just as much to the offense as the defense.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#189 - 2015-08-05 14:06:43 UTC
Grouchy Smurf wrote:
Why do you find that a commitment of 1 billion ISK for a module that is used to capture space at alliance level is bothersome?

Don't worry, we are taking it one step at a time. We will reach the overall point.



Very easy. You put an shop in the middle of war zone without no one to protect it do you?
Grouchy Smurf
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#190 - 2015-08-05 14:11:47 UTC
So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that:

a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because
b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members.

Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity?
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#191 - 2015-08-05 14:11:56 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:
Icycle wrote:
Falin Whalen wrote:
You know that a system is bad when mining is more rewarding game play than chasing away sov trolls. At least you get something with mining.


You guys are obsessed with the word "trolling"
What you regard as "trolling" to me is a genuine attack/herass to an IHUB, TCU or a Station.
If you dont want to protect it around the clock in space that you dont live well thats your issue but if you do want to protect it then you cant blame it on CCP or call it trolling just cos you decide to defend a system that is really far away from your home systems and that you dont actually bother living in it. To me its all your fault. If you were living in it, this would not happen. Simple.


The main goal of the new sov mechanic is that you can take weakly defendet or undefendet sov as a smaller entity. I gues we can agree that this goal has been achieved.

If you attack sov with the purpose of keeping (and defending) it, then thats not trolling.

If you attack sov without the intention to keep it or even provoke a fight but just to anoy the sov holders, well thats prety clear trolling.

So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal.


I dont concider attacking something and not wanting it trolling. I concider it gorrilla warfare. Be nimble and attack your enemy. Attack and disapear to the jungle. True gorilla warfare.
Nou Mene
Krypted Gaming
#192 - 2015-08-05 14:13:56 UTC
Reposting myself from a closed thread

Quote:
First, i want to know whats so interesting to do in your Null Sec that makes hunting ceptors "unfun", i can hardly imagine a DAILY more engaging activity.

Second, as someone pointed, if every entosis link (t1) is around 35m, then every 2 ceptor killed you expect to get 35m on loot. If the problem (during your SHORT vulneravility window) is so acute then is a pretty profitable activity.

Third, you shouldnt be hunting them, if it is in your system. Warp once in an hour (good indexes) to kill the ceptor, there are many options to kill them quite quickly. (HINT: t3d work wonders). If is an empty system, working as intended: the system has no value for you, you should lose it.

Fourth, if the big groups have hundreds or thousands of pilots, just form an anti-ceptor (or similar) group to keep things going, flying light. Pay them if you want. Carebears can keep doing their own stuff. If the "trolling" faction really wants sov, they are going to bring bigger assets, you will have bigger fights.


Finally, all this makes forming an ANTI-CEPTOR MERCENARY CORP (ACMC) [just coining the term] a really tempting idea.
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2015-08-05 14:17:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Icycle
Grouchy Smurf wrote:
So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that:

a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because
b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members.

Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity?


In terms i dont want the entosis to be expensive cos you dont need a bazzoka to attack a shop.
I dont think the ihub should be too expensive either bytherway.
I dont know about you but we usually support entosis ships with several other ships to get agro and kill something also.
We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system.

One man can do nothing vs people that live in that area. Unless you dont live in that area ofcource Lol and dont happen to be there cos you dont live there. Then its fair game.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#194 - 2015-08-05 14:17:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Why? The person doing so has no desire to actually take the space or the structure. They're merely abusing the extremely low bar for the attacker that CCP has set.


Using a game mechanic in an unintended way? Like bumping and hyperdunking?

Funny how we all selectively choose which pieces of 'unintended gameplay' should be allowed and which should not.
Grouchy Smurf
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2015-08-05 14:25:14 UTC
Icycle wrote:
Grouchy Smurf wrote:
So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that:

a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because
b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members.

Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity?


In terms i dont want the entosis to be expensive cos you dont need a bazzoka to attack a shop.
I dont think the ihub should be too expensive either bytherway.
I dont know about you but we usually support entosis ships with several other ships to get agro and kill something also.
We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system.

One man can do nothing vs people that live in that area. Unless you dont live in that area ofcource Lol and dont happen to be there cos you dont live there. Then its fair game.



Can you answer the question stated or will you simply talk about "bazookas" , "shops" and other things that have nothing to do with the game?

The question was: Why do you think that capturing a system as alliance level is a 1-man activity. We reached to that question by following your statements that Entosis links shouldn't be 1 billion ISK each because you don't want to protect them with additional members.

If you think I misunderstood one of those statements or if you changed your mind, please let me know and I will reconsider.
Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#196 - 2015-08-05 14:25:45 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Captain Awkward wrote:


So Fozzysov 1.1 should do something about the trolling without corrupting its primary goal.


Exactly. If the defenders are spread too thin to show up, then they lose the space. If the defenders do not want to fight, they lose the space. If the attackers don't really want to take the space, there should not be much they can do.

If the defenders do not show up at all, then the attackers can Entosis their sov just as easily in a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship as they can in an Interceptor.

If the defenders do show up, then having a Cruiser, Battlecruiser, or Battleship on field is more likely to result in a fight. Fights are a good thing. They are, after all, pretty much the whole point of this game.

The sovereignty system should reward people who are willing to fight, not people who do not want to fight. This simple rule should apply just as much to the offense as the defense.



Well if the defender is spread to thin...then its not really the attackers fault. CCP said this was coming. You guys restructured but i think you did a bad job in some areas and a good in others. If the defender does not fight they lose space. If the attacker does not figth, it does not get the space. Its whats happening currently and what i support. Defend your space or lose it. Its normal. Nothing new in Eve.

If the defender fight for it and wins, he keeps it exactly as its happenig now. Yes sov should reward those willing to fight. If they win they win if they lose they lose. Exactly whats happening now. You guys failed to defend one system and lost sov.
Then you guys attacked it again and we failed to defend it. We lost it. Its correct.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#197 - 2015-08-05 14:28:32 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:

Using a game mechanic in an unintended way? Like bumping and hyperdunking?


Not much at all like them, actually.

This is intended, they just intended it badly, and as such it warrants discussion. Much like the recent UI changes.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Icycle
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#198 - 2015-08-05 14:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Icycle
Grouchy Smurf wrote:
Icycle wrote:
Grouchy Smurf wrote:
So, so in layman's terms, you are saying that:

a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because
b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members.

Why do you think that capturing a system at alliance level is a 1-man activity?


In terms i dont want the entosis to be expensive cos you dont need a bazzoka to attack a shop.
I dont think the ihub should be too expensive either bytherway.
I dont know about you but we usually support entosis ships with several other ships to get agro and kill something also.
We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system.

One man can do nothing vs people that live in that area. Unless you dont live in that area ofcource Lol and dont happen to be there cos you dont live there. Then its fair game.



Can you answer the question stated or will you simply talk about "bazookas" , "shops" and other things that have nothing to do with the game?

The question was: Why do you think that capturing a system as alliance level is a 1-man activity. We reached to that question by following your statements that Entosis links shouldn't be 1 billion ISK each because you don't want to protect them with additional members.

If you think I misunderstood one of those statements or if you changed your mind, please let me know and I will reconsider.


a) You don't want the entosis link to be expensive, because
I dont think the entosis should be more expensive than it already is cos I dont think you it normal to place a TCU or a IHUB or a station in an area if dont live in it or area not willing to protect it or thats heavelly contested. Why should I have to pay cos you desided to put a base in a system and leave it empty and complain when you got to defend it? Its your fault. Dont put expensive stuff in an area you can not protect. Or dont upgrade an area you cannot protect!

b) You don't think you should support the Entosis ship with additional members.
We dont really entosis without protection. We do have people either on that system or in the next system.
If someone desides to do an entosis without any backup, I would concider it suicide cos they get caught so easy. But yes if they want to do it why not? Its gorilla warfare!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#199 - 2015-08-05 14:43:53 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:

Funny how we all selectively choose which pieces of 'unintended gameplay' should be allowed and which should not.

Or how some idiots selectively choose to not understand what someone else is saying.

Lucas Kell alt identified. Damn my 'Hide Posts' button is getting a workout....

F
Grouchy Smurf
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2015-08-05 14:45:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Grouchy Smurf
Again, you are adding things that no one talked about. I never mentioned TCUs, iHUBS, people using a system or not. Do not try to move the goal posts. I could easily reply by saying "Because I also used a 1 billion ISK module to put a base in that system that I don't use" but that will just point the discussion to a different area. I am trying to help you identify the problem that the overwhelming majority of alliances have right now: Disposable ships that engage in Sov warfare without ever intended to capture it.

I simply asked why would you, personally, be opposed to a module which enables the capture of space at an alliance level, to be costed at 1 billion ISK. It is my understanding that you really don't have an solid response to this other than "I don't like it".

If the system is emply / not used, then your 1 billion investment is safe.
If you have a support fleet, then your 1 billion investment is, relatively, safe.

So it makes no difference whatsoever to you / MoA.

Why do you have a problem with investing a great sum of money when you plan capturing space at alliance level? ( I keep repeating the "alliance level" line again and again because it's what the mechanic is all about. You are not supposed to pay for the entosis link by yourself, your whole alliance has to chip in)