These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Collective petition about fozziesov

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#581 - 2015-08-18 20:11:37 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
+1

Despite people whining that this relates to rental income, the OP is right. This system puts null holders on the defensive during vulnerability timers, which undermines the ability to fight for content elsewhere.


"It's literally too much to expect us to undock a RLML Caracal and a couple of tackle frigates to defend our sov during our prime"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#582 - 2015-08-18 20:51:06 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
+1

Despite people whining that this relates to rental income, the OP is right. This system puts null holders on the defensive during vulnerability timers, which undermines the ability to fight for content elsewhere.


"It's literally too much to expect us to undock a RLML Caracal and a couple of tackle frigates to defend our sov during our prime"


Undock?

But that's boring.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#583 - 2015-08-18 21:39:55 UTC
Jeven HouseBenyo wrote:
So let me get this straight.

CCP, with the release of FozzieSov, managed to 'break' your 'shiny' when it comes to Sov.

"Who Moved My Cheese!"
Redwyne Vyruk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#584 - 2015-08-18 23:07:41 UTC
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#585 - 2015-08-19 07:05:39 UTC
Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing.

As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we?

BEFORE

AFTER

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Steadly Sol
Sonic Intoxication
#586 - 2015-08-19 07:34:17 UTC
Signed.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#587 - 2015-08-19 07:49:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing.

As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we?

BEFORE

AFTER
So before we coloured the map in 4 colours for CFC, NC, Provi and "neutral", and after we colour in the map for each alliance. That way it looks like huge amounts have changed. That about right?

Unclaimed systems are a sign that sov is not worth taking, to the point that people leave systems they could just walk in and claim uncontested. It's because most people don't want sov, they just don't want coalitions to have it either.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#588 - 2015-08-19 21:41:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing.

As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we?

BEFORE

AFTER
So before we coloured the map in 4 colours for CFC, NC, Provi and "neutral", and after we colour in the map for each alliance. That way it looks like huge amounts have changed. That about right?

Unclaimed systems are a sign that sov is not worth taking, to the point that people leave systems they could just walk in and claim uncontested. It's because most people don't want sov, they just don't want coalitions to have it either.



Why are you still in a 0.0 alliance?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#589 - 2015-08-20 06:38:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Unclaimed, or effectively unclaimed systems are not an indication of failure. The idea that every system should be inarguably owned is a toxic holdover from the Dominion/Pre-Phoebe era. Opportunities for ambitious homesteaders are a good thing.

As for the map, yes let's look at the map shall we?

BEFORE

AFTER
So before we coloured the map in 4 colours for CFC, NC, Provi and "neutral", and after we colour in the map for each alliance. That way it looks like huge amounts have changed. That about right?

Unclaimed systems are a sign that sov is not worth taking, to the point that people leave systems they could just walk in and claim uncontested. It's because most people don't want sov, they just don't want coalitions to have it either.
Why are you still in a 0.0 alliance?
Because I like(d) null and hold out hope CCP won't destroy it in the long run. Nice dodge though bro.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#590 - 2015-08-20 06:53:37 UTC
Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#591 - 2015-08-20 10:37:46 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was.
I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#592 - 2015-08-20 11:40:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was.
I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed?

If you could link a more up to date bloc map I'd be delighted to use it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#593 - 2015-08-20 12:31:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was.
I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed?
If you could link a more up to date bloc map I'd be delighted to use it.
I don't have such a map. If you don't either, then it's probably better to simply avoid suggesting that looking at 2 different types of map shows the change. Maybe at some point someone that cares enough about such things will roll out a decent analysis of the changes.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
guinea12
laughing pines
#594 - 2015-08-20 13:02:12 UTC  |  Edited by: guinea12
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well I ask because apprently you're so unfamiliar with the state of 0.0 that you're unaware that the sov map is vastly more heterogenous than it was.
I'd say "vastly" is an overstatement. Some of the russian borderland have been hacked up and a couple of groups have pulled out of null, but the changes haven;t been that big. My comment however was simply that you've taken 2 different style of map and compared them. Why not use the same type of map if you want to get across how much the landscape has changed?
If you could link a more up to date bloc map I'd be delighted to use it.
I don't have such a map. If you don't either, then it's probably better to simply avoid suggesting that looking at 2 different types of map shows the change. Maybe at some point someone that cares enough about such things will roll out a decent analysis of the changes.


There you go:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/coalitionsov/Coalitioninfluence.png

Malcanis made the very good point that the notion that every bit of space needs to be owned by someone all the time is rather toxic.

I agree. Why shouldn't we have bits of space that, simply for the fact that the current 0.0 powers right now are not interested in having it or capable of defending it remain in freeport mode until someone steps up to try and live in it, remain unallocated?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#595 - 2015-08-20 16:24:01 UTC
guinea12 wrote:
There you go:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/coalitionsov/Coalitioninfluence.png
Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year?

guinea12 wrote:
Malcanis made the very good point that the notion that every bit of space needs to be owned by someone all the time is rather toxic.

I agree. Why shouldn't we have bits of space that, simply for the fact that the current 0.0 powers right now are not interested in having it or capable of defending it remain in freeport mode until someone steps up to try and live in it, remain unallocated?
Doesn't it make you wonder though why the space is so worthless that nobody wants to claim it? I can't stick a broken fridge outside my house for more than 10 minutes before someone's claimed it. How badly balanced do null systems need to be for them to be so unwanted?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
guinea12
laughing pines
#596 - 2015-08-20 17:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: guinea12
Lucas Kell wrote:
Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year?
No. The map is generated on a daily basis. I don't know if past maps are stored somewhere.
Lucas Kell wrote:
Doesn't it make you wonder though why the space is so worthless that nobody wants to claim it? I can't stick a broken fridge outside my house for more than 10 minutes before someone's claimed it. How badly balanced do null systems need to be for them to be so unwanted?
I like that analogy. The reason why someone takes the fridge is because it is obviously worthless to you but not to them. Would they wrestle a pitbull for it? No. But if its previous owner doesn't want it anymore, they might as well take it and see if they can find a use for it somehow. I would love the new mechanic to lead to that kind of thing in terms of 0.0 space.
k898
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#597 - 2015-08-20 19:10:40 UTC
They are stored on eve files
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#598 - 2015-08-20 19:50:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
guinea12 wrote:
There you go:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/coalitionsov/Coalitioninfluence.png
Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year?


http://i.imgur.com/yAR8khZ.jpg

The best I could do with an old map and windows paint.

Imperium and N3 where the two blocks.

Providence were neutral and I'm electing to count Brave as N3

While Providence held their region by force of arms (and the space is so bad that no one stronger wanted it)

Brave held catch with N3s permission and at the mercy of N3. So while Brave at the time might not have fought for N3. Their space belonged to N3 and was held by Brave under the threat of N3s capital fleets.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#599 - 2015-08-20 20:46:25 UTC
guinea12 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year?
No. The map is generated on a daily basis. I don't know if past maps are stored somewhere.
That's a shame.


guinea12 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Doesn't it make you wonder though why the space is so worthless that nobody wants to claim it? I can't stick a broken fridge outside my house for more than 10 minutes before someone's claimed it. How badly balanced do null systems need to be for them to be so unwanted?
I like that analogy. The reason why someone takes the fridge is because it is obviously worthless to you but not to them. Would they wrestle a pitbull for it? No. But if its previous owner doesn't want it anymore, they might as well take it and see if they can find a use for it somehow. I would love the new mechanic to lead to that kind of thing in terms of 0.0 space.
That would be nice. Unfortunately most sov space is worth about as much as a low class wormhole. Not the type of thing a passer by is likely to say "ooh, this is nice!"

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#600 - 2015-08-20 20:57:33 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
guinea12 wrote:
There you go:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/coalitionsov/Coalitioninfluence.png
Thanks, got another one with the same groupings from last year?

guinea12 wrote:
Malcanis made the very good point that the notion that every bit of space needs to be owned by someone all the time is rather toxic.

I agree. Why shouldn't we have bits of space that, simply for the fact that the current 0.0 powers right now are not interested in having it or capable of defending it remain in freeport mode until someone steps up to try and live in it, remain unallocated?
Doesn't it make you wonder though why the space is so worthless that nobody wants to claim it? I can't stick a broken fridge outside my house for more than 10 minutes before someone's claimed it. How badly balanced do null systems need to be for them to be so unwanted?


If space is so worthless how come any of it is claimed?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016