These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Galatea] First batch of sov capture iterations

First post First post
Author
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1021 - 2015-08-24 03:05:12 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's just dumb that it's a threat to sov that needs a response. It allows a frigate to force a defensive response even though, like you say, in a utilised system they have NO chance of taking it, and it means that attackers can put nearly nothing on the line while defenders have their whole system on the line. All of the control is in the attackers hands. While it required far too much commitment from attackers in the old system it now requires far too little.
Except the defenders don't have their whole system on the line. The trollceptor has no chance. Against a single frigate all that's "on the line" is 5 minutes out of the life of one of the systems ratters.

I'm sure it's not amusing to have to warp away from your ratting to go deal with somebody sov-ing for laughs. And I'm sure eventually the ratters will get frustrated, and bored, and want to stop defending. Maybe the Alliance needs to put a bounty on entosis attempts. Maybe somebody just needs to multibox a sniper to fend off frigates. Not going to pretend I've theorycrafted the best method of minimizing the ISK/hour impact of defending your space.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1022 - 2015-08-24 03:17:51 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
We've already been there and confirmed I'm a lot more experienced with fozziesov than you are. Being a dominionfag means you suck at adaption, not experience.
You've not confirmed anything beyond the fact that you're a troll. Your a butthurt NPC player, probably lost a hauler or something and now are trying to derail feedback threads. And I'm done with you.

Aerasia wrote:
Except the defenders don't have their whole system on the line. The trollceptor has no chance. Against a single frigate all that's "on the line" is 5 minutes out of the life of one of the systems ratters.
But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship. Now matter how much border control is put in place, a nullified stabbed ship can just plough on through. It's not healthy for an attacker to have that much power and I'm pretty sure the reason for that will be demonstrated soon.

Aerasia wrote:
I'm sure it's not amusing to have to warp away from your ratting to go deal with somebody sov-ing for laughs. And I'm sure eventually the ratters will get frustrated, and bored, and want to stop defending. Maybe the Alliance needs to put a bounty on entosis attempts. Maybe somebody just needs to multibox a sniper to fend off frigates. Not going to pretend I've theorycrafted the best method of minimizing the ISK/hour impact of defending your space.
And you don't see that as a problem? The #1 goal of fozziesov was "ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved", and yet you're effectively agreeing here that it's such a chore for defender that alliances will have to actually pay their members to do it. How can it be described as anything but a failure if that's the case? An enjoyable mechanic players would choose to interact with.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1023 - 2015-08-24 03:35:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Warmeister
Lucas Kell wrote:
And you don't see that as a problem? The #1 goal of fozziesov was "ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved", and yet you're effectively agreeing here that it's such a chore for defender that alliances will have to actually pay their members to do it. How can it be described as anything but a failure if that's the case? An enjoyable mechanic players would choose to interact with.


except that fending off lone ceptor isn't exactly "fighting for a system"

with your deployment to provi you have a perfect opportunity to show how sov can be taken with troll ceptors.
i hope that you will stick to the ideas your coalition members expressed in this thread, and only use 1 ceptor per system at the time to illustrate how broken the system is.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1024 - 2015-08-24 03:42:26 UTC
Querns wrote:
Orca Platypus wrote:
dominionfag

Ah yes, we're at this level of discourse now.

Ah, to pick exactly one word without any context at all and pick on it.
This is truly the skill at the peak of gewn school of debate.

Failing at ad gewnminem they studied prior posts to pick on anything at all. Failing that too, we're down to picking literally single words out. What's next? Oh yes, declaring me insane pubbie sh*tlord, and claiming none of my arguments matter because gewn said so.

I really should start making those gewn tears bingo cards.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1025 - 2015-08-24 03:42:29 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And you don't see that as a problem? The #1 goal of fozziesov was "ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved", and yet you're effectively agreeing here that it's such a chore for defender that alliances will have to actually pay their members to do it. How can it be described as anything but a failure if that's the case? An enjoyable mechanic players would choose to interact with.
except that fending off lone ceptor isn't exactly "fighting for a system"

with your deployment to provi you have a perfect opportunity how sov can be taken with troll ceptors.
i hope that you will stick to the ideas your coalition members expressed in this thread, and only use 1 ceptor per system at the time to illustrate how broken the system is.
It's all part of the mechanic. the only reason the interceptor needs to be chased is because if you don't he succeeds in contesting the system.

Noone is suggesting that a lone ceptor can take a system, in fact if he could it would be less of a problem (though there would be other issues). The problem is that it's the optimal strategy to annoy an alliance by repeatedly sending in trollceptors knowing that each and every one will need to be responded to. It's "fighting with boredom" as Fozzie put it for dominion, and it's one of the things the mechanic is supposed to be against. We're taking it one step further and will be running a different type of campaign but will be equally uninterested in holding the sov. Sov mechanics are no longer a way of fighting over control of a system, they are just a way to annoy the people that live there and a way to claim unused space.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1026 - 2015-08-24 03:50:35 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Noone is suggesting that a lone ceptor can take a system.


strange, the impression i got from previous 51 pages of this thread was that this was exactly what your coalition members suggested
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1027 - 2015-08-24 04:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Warmeister wrote:
strange, the impression i got from previous 51 pages of this thread was that this was exactly what your coalition members suggested
Then you need to work on your comprehension. It's been stated multiple times, not just by us:

Lucas Kell wrote:
It's not that it's too difficult, it's simply boring. There's no fun in endlessly chasing frigates around simply because you have to to hold space.
baltec1 wrote:
Defending isn't a problem, the issue is that trollcepters are even more boring than the old sov mechanics.
Sgt Ocker wrote:
It is boring tedious and primarily based on conflict avoidance.
Interceptor based avoidance strategies, have all but replaced sov warfare - and is for the most part pretty bad design.
Jenn aSide wrote:
They literally took a system that could be equal parts boredom (structure grinding) and Epicness and made it ALL boring (and then counted that as a win). I thought the change (ie massive over-reaction) from POS based sov to dominion was bad, but this one is worse, at least Dominion preserved the spirit of 0.0 space fighting.

This new system is EASIER to defend, my wallets have never been so fat from null sec isk, but Aegis SOV has sucked the 'awesome' out of the game. For some reason, some people think the opposition is about not liking change, or not wanting to adapt, or losing. But we HAVE all adapted , and no one of consequence has lost anything.


I've run out of ability to add more quotes to this post but there are many many many more.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1028 - 2015-08-24 04:14:36 UTC
Hush now Orca. I'm not reading that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1029 - 2015-08-24 04:22:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Hush now Orca. I'm not reading that.

So now it's "lalala I can't hear you".
You still haven't hit the bottom, but it's approaching at the speed of an imminent dialectic fiasco.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1030 - 2015-08-24 04:23:40 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship.
Which, perversely, works in the defenders favor. Mittani explains better than I.
Lucas Kell wrote:
And you don't see that as a problem?
No. The attacker spends 30-60 minutes hacking a structure, the defender spends 5 minutes saying "No, go away." As annoying as it might be fore the defender, it's even moreso for the attacker.

I have no doubt that EVE harbors the right type of personalities to have one side or the other dedicate themselves to those efforts for months. But in order for an undefended system to be vulnerable to a single frigate, a defended system needs to be approachable for that same frigate. And if the result of that is a few dozen ratters groaning in frustration as they get pulled away from their AFK ISK farming for the 4th time this week? I'm OK with that.
Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1031 - 2015-08-24 04:41:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Warmeister wrote:
strange, the impression i got from previous 51 pages of this thread was that this was exactly what your coalition members suggested
Then you need to work on your comprehension. It's been stated multiple times, not just by us:

my comprehension is quite alright, thank you. it's also been stated many times by your members, yourself included that 'troll ceptors shouldn't be allowed to take sov'. so now you are actually contradicting yourself....again
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1032 - 2015-08-24 04:56:04 UTC
So I have read about 16.5 pages of posts and all I have to contribute are these two links.

Link 1.

Link 2.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Kystraz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1033 - 2015-08-24 06:07:11 UTC
Quote:
Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1034 - 2015-08-24 06:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Aerasia wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship.
Which, perversely, works in the defenders favor. Mittani explains better than I.
Lucas Kell wrote:
And you don't see that as a problem?
No. The attacker spends 30-60 minutes hacking a structure, the defender spends 5 minutes saying "No, go away." As annoying as it might be fore the defender, it's even moreso for the attacker.

I have no doubt that EVE harbors the right type of personalities to have one side or the other dedicate themselves to those efforts for months. But in order for an undefended system to be vulnerable to a single frigate, a defended system needs to be approachable for that same frigate. And if the result of that is a few dozen ratters groaning in frustration as they get pulled away from their AFK ISK farming for the 4th time this week? I'm OK with that.


The fact that if your indexes are high enough you can ignore another player for 45 minutes, then finally go respond to them, and then either kill them or chase them away, is still not good game play. Eve is supposed to be a fun and exciting game. CCP should be trying to find ways to make content denial the least viable strategy.

Fundamentally, at either extreme of the indexes, Aegis Sov still rewards conflict evasion tactics - and that is why it is not a good system.

Many years ago, CCP changed the aggression mechanics so that logging off your tackled Supercapital was no longer the best strategy. This was a great change. Logging off the game - not playing the game - making other players waste time - should never be the best strategy.

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

Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1035 - 2015-08-24 06:12:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship. Now matter how much border control is put in place, a nullified stabbed ship can just plough on through. It's not healthy for an attacker to have that much power and I'm pretty sure the reason for that will be demonstrated soon.
.

you are exaggerating

in order for defender to lose the sov he has to not show up twice.
first time when the structure is RF'd. second time when it comes out of RF and the lone ceptor has to grind through beacons. i think it's 12 of them after this patch.

if that has happened i think defender has no one to blame but himself.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1036 - 2015-08-24 06:24:53 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship. Now matter how much border control is put in place, a nullified stabbed ship can just plough on through. It's not healthy for an attacker to have that much power and I'm pretty sure the reason for that will be demonstrated soon.
.

you are exaggerating

in order for defender to lose the sov he has to not show up twice.
first time when the structure is RF'd. second time when it comes out of RF and the lone ceptor has to grind through beacons. i think it's 12 of them after this patch.


To me, that is part of the problem. I would rather see a system in which the defender always has to be ready to fight for his space - at least during his designated prime time - but the attacker has to make a concerted effort to go for it.

That way, if the attacker makes an effort to attack, and the defender fails to show up once, he should lose that space. The attacker will always get the initiative - he chooses the date and place for the fight. The defender gets to choose the vulnerability window - but can never decide "Let's blue ball them today and ping for more numbers two days from now."

Not showing up to the fight should never be a viable strategy for a sov holding alliance. At the same time, making an attempt on sovereignty should require enough effort on the part of the attacker that it is not undertaken lightly.

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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1037 - 2015-08-24 06:35:40 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship. Now matter how much border control is put in place, a nullified stabbed ship can just plough on through. It's not healthy for an attacker to have that much power and I'm pretty sure the reason for that will be demonstrated soon.
.

you are exaggerating

in order for defender to lose the sov he has to not show up twice.
first time when the structure is RF'd. second time when it comes out of RF and the lone ceptor has to grind through beacons. i think it's 12 of them after this patch.

if that has happened i think defender has no one to blame but himself.


I think you are missing the overall point many are making against Fozziesov. It is not that a well organized coalition is going to fall to one dude in an interceptor, but that Sov Trolling is on par with AFK cloaking as a form of game play. Over all it sucks and is not fun.

Hopefully AFK cloaking will go the way of the dodo with the observatory array and local will too (as the default to be clawed back with the observatory array which is vulnerable....to the entosis link no less) and in upcoming iterations so will Sov Trolling.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Warmeister
Tactical Farmers.
Tactical Farmers
#1038 - 2015-08-24 06:54:33 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

I think you are missing the overall point many are making against Fozziesov. It is not that a well organized coalition is going to fall to one dude in an interceptor, but that Sov Trolling is on par with AFK cloaking as a form of game play. Over all it sucks and is not fun.

Hopefully AFK cloaking will go the way of the dodo with the observatory array and local will too (as the default to be clawed back with the observatory array which is vulnerable....to the entosis link no less) and in upcoming iterations so will Sov Trolling.


once the local goes, so does the problem of supposed invincibility of ceptors, as they will only know that someone has come for them once they are about to land on grid, thus making the argument moot

at a higher level, harassment is a valid game play in my opinion. if CCP is going to change mechanics to make it impossible, they would have to look at lots of things, like suicide ganking for example.

they could for example require people participating in Jita burn put some skin on the line and use ships that match the value of freighters they are killing ;)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1039 - 2015-08-24 07:14:17 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
But a defender HAS to respond, otherwise the system is lost. There's no other option. Just by showing up the attacker forces a response because no matter how utilised the system, the system is still vulnerable to an evasion fit ship.
Which, perversely, works in the defenders favor. Mittani explains better than I.
That's not it being an advantage, that simply the reason that it's also boring for the attacker. The attacker still has the full choice of whether to do it and the defender is still forced to respond every time without fail.

Aerasia wrote:
No. The attacker spends 30-60 minutes hacking a structure, the defender spends 5 minutes saying "No, go away." As annoying as it might be fore the defender, it's even moreso for the attacker.
So you don't see it as a problem that both sides of the mechanic is boring?

Aerasia wrote:
I have no doubt that EVE harbors the right type of personalities to have one side or the other dedicate themselves to those efforts for months. But in order for an undefended system to be vulnerable to a single frigate, a defended system needs to be approachable for that same frigate. And if the result of that is a few dozen ratters groaning in frustration as they get pulled away from their AFK ISK farming for the 4th time this week? I'm OK with that.
But an undefended system is undefended. It doesn't matter what you bring, it will still fall to a solo ship. If they made battlecurisers for example the minimum for entosis links, the same groups would still only need to bring one ship to take it. The only reason to support interceptors taking sov is so they can run away when defenders are about.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1040 - 2015-08-24 07:21:09 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
once the local goes, so does the problem of supposed invincibility of ceptors, as they will only know that someone has come for them once they are about to land on grid, thus making the argument moot
Because d-scan doesn't exist Roll

Warmeister wrote:
at a higher level, harassment is a valid game play in my opinion. if CCP is going to change mechanics to make it impossible, they would have to look at lots of things, like suicide ganking for example.
Harassment yes, boredom no. One of the problems Fozzie stated the old mechanic had is that people could use it as a weapon to create boredom for their opponents. Letting the new mechanic work so easily for the same goal is bad.

Warmeister wrote:
they could for example require people participating in Jita burn put some skin on the line and use ships that match the value of freighters they are killing ;)
I'm acually for this. I think ganking risk should be increased. I've posted on this many times.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.