Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

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.

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.

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.

strange, the impression i got from previous 51 pages of this thread was that this was exactly what your coalition members suggested

Hush now Orca. I'm not reading that.

Which, perversely, works in the defenders favor. Mittani explains better than I.
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.

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 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.

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.

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 ;)

Because d-scan doesn't exist

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.

I'm acually for this. I think ganking risk should be increased. I've posted on this many times.