These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1221 - 2015-08-27 20:05:42 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
stuff i didn't read


That's the 3rd, 4th, or 5th time you have linked ~coalition numbers~. I want you to know that every time you bring up numbers your post gets completely overlooked and is assumed to be nothing of importance.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1222 - 2015-08-27 21:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Harry Saq wrote:


The Imperium (38.05%) - 41237
Drone Region Federation (12.01%) - 13020
----------------vs---------------
Provi-Bloc (9.72%) - 10530

Where the 53k group is saying the game isn't producing enough opportunities for us to fight big battles against our 10.5k enemies.


We have perhaps two thousand deployed not 53k and that number is spread out over several timezones.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1223 - 2015-08-27 21:13:52 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
...I brought 10 drakes with me in preparation, been in multiple fleets every day and I've only been in a couple of fights and lost half shield at most. I even AFKed a few times for several minutes, finding myself alone at a gate when I got back and STILL I couldn't get my slow ass drake blown up...It's horrendous.
This is more of a function of outnumbering your enemy 5:1, which is why I keep linking the coalition numbers.
Except of course that we're generally not forming up on a coalition level. I'm only flying with SMA (OK, yesterday we had a single bastion guy along for the ride) so most fights we have are just us. Your constant complaining that we have too many friends continues to be irrelevant.
The numbers do in fact matter, since you are attacking the entire region spread out according to assignments. That means the defenders are also spread out, and with much much fewer of them to pull from you are going to see alot less of them. Numbers are what they are, and it isn't complaining, just want to make sure your complaining is in context.
Oh good lord stop linking the godamn coalitions. Yes our coalition is big. You don't like it. Tough. Deal with it or quit. You're telling us that because we're the single largest group in EVE that our educated feedback on mechanics should simply be ignored. That's simply not how it works. Get over whatever butthurt it is we caused you and discuss the actual mechanics.

In this specific instance, it's completely irrelevant, since while they may be spread out as we are, the fleets we are engaging are on par with our own. It doesn't matter if there are goons 10 jumps away or more CVA a few jumps over if they aren't involved in the fight.

Harry Saq wrote:
Agreed, no mechanics can or should stop it, however normal conquest mechanics should not REQUIRE it as a logical bi-product as with the old system. They worked on trying to solve the tidi problems for years, at some point you need to change direction. Perhaps they eventually crack it and the experience is better, but until then what is certain is that they have failed thus far, and atleast they are moving on to something solvable. Since mechanics no longer require the big escalation, we will be free to escalate as much as we please voluntarily and find out if the servers can hold.
Whatever system they put in place, it's an alliance level mechanic. It will always come down to numbers. Always. If they somehow invented a mechanic that made a solo player as powerful as an entire alliance they would have broken the game.

I don't know how much you've played with the new mechanics, but they are whack a mole in space. They are insanely dull to deal with regardless of size, and they won't help in the long run once the initial novelty wears off.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1224 - 2015-08-27 22:05:05 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
...I brought 10 drakes with me in preparation, been in multiple fleets every day and I've only been in a couple of fights and lost half shield at most. I even AFKed a few times for several minutes, finding myself alone at a gate when I got back and STILL I couldn't get my slow ass drake blown up...It's horrendous.
This is more of a function of outnumbering your enemy 5:1, which is why I keep linking the coalition numbers.
Except of course that we're generally not forming up on a coalition level. I'm only flying with SMA (OK, yesterday we had a single bastion guy along for the ride) so most fights we have are just us. Your constant complaining that we have too many friends continues to be irrelevant.
The numbers do in fact matter, since you are attacking the entire region spread out according to assignments. That means the defenders are also spread out, and with much much fewer of them to pull from you are going to see alot less of them. Numbers are what they are, and it isn't complaining, just want to make sure your complaining is in context.
Oh good lord stop linking the godamn coalitions. Yes our coalition is big. You don't like it. Tough. Deal with it or quit. You're telling us that because we're the single largest group in EVE that our educated feedback on mechanics should simply be ignored. That's simply not how it works. Get over whatever butthurt it is we caused you and discuss the actual mechanics.
I am completely dispassionate about it, certainly comparatively to your outburst. I am however simply providing context to your "educated feedback on mechanics" in terms of the perspective it is coming from. Provi is a teachable moment, it is important to understand the relative strengths of the parties involved, as embarrassing as it may be for either. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much, or by what logic you use such that numbers aren't relevant to said mechanics and quality of play. Big coalitions are living monuments to old Dominion Sov mechanics, the teachable moment isn't whether a bigger group can beat a smaller group, but instead how big is too big to be sustained, and part of sustaining is having a reason for being. You said it yourself, whatever is designed to will be an alliance level mechanic, coalitions are external player created entities never supported by actual in-game mechanics, which speaks to design intent. Aegus Sov is apparently just re-emphasizing play geared towards alliances and corporations.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1225 - 2015-08-27 22:22:29 UTC
Warmeister wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

Roll And once again, the ONLY reason to use an interceptor is for when defenders DO show up. You don;t need an evasion fit ship if you have noone to evade.


wrong. you need an evasion fit ship to get to the system of your choice first and foremost, and not die to the first gate camp.

Yes you do need and SHOULD need an evasion ship - To scout the FLEET in that is contesting sov.
No individual should ever be able to reach and contest a system simply with evasion tactics.


Easiest fix for troll ceptors is to balance the amount of Stront per cycle so that a single frigate needs support to effectively contest anything.

3 Stront for startup cycle - 1 Stront per cycle. This way a troll ceptor who is simply there to screw with defenders is only going to manage a few attempts before having to get more Stront.
While a ceptor that is part of an attacking fleet only needs one startup per structure and fleet members carry extra Stront as needed.


My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1226 - 2015-08-27 23:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Harry Saq wrote:
I am completely dispassionate about it, certainly comparatively to your outburst. I am however simply providing context to your "educated feedback on mechanics" in terms of the perspective it is coming from. Provi is a teachable moment, it is important to understand the relative strengths of the parties involved, as embarrassing as it may be for either. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much, or by what logic you use such that numbers aren't relevant to said mechanics and quality of play. Big coalitions are living monuments to old Dominion Sov mechanics, the teachable moment isn't whether a bigger group can beat a smaller group, but instead how big is too big to be sustained, and part of sustaining is having a reason for being. You said it yourself, whatever is designed to will be an alliance level mechanic, coalitions are external player created entities never supported by actual in-game mechanics, which speaks to design intent. Aegus Sov is apparently just re-emphasizing play geared towards alliances and corporations.

Problem is, many alliances would not survive without coalition support so band together to try and keep what little (or overly much) they have.

Take the Provi deployment as an example.
The Imperium says they have "only" 2,000 deployed - So there are still in theory 39,000 left to defend their combined space - The 2,000 that are deployed aren't risking anything (except the odd ship loss). Risk vs Reward favours the attacker.

Where if there was no coalitions, deploying becomes a whole new ballgame - You need to commit to the deployment and fight to win because there is a big chance another alliance is going to notice, you are deployed and your sov is lightly defended.

Eve has evolved to where that type of risk vs reward = join a coalition.

Not GRRR Goons but - Goons have space that other alliances would like to take, without coalitions it is possible someone could in fact take, at least part, of Goon space but while ever coalitions exist there will be no "sov wars" (replace Goon space with any other sov alliance that is part of a coalition - the same applies).
Just the odd fight here and there because he said, she said, he did it and I have a point to prove - Does not add up to enjoyable, engaging content for all players involved.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1227 - 2015-08-27 23:59:57 UTC
Just to be clear. I like a lot the new sov system. But I hate interceptors using the entosis sicne goes agaisnt the whole proposition of the system. And I also hate that they made EVEYR SINGLE structure be attaked by entosis, they should left a few as DPS target, to keep some use for capitals.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1228 - 2015-08-28 00:01:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:


Seems to me that T3 destroyers are way out of control.


Thats a whole other argument with t3d being too overpowered and invalidating things like AF completely.



To be fair with a couple of exceptions AF were invalid even before the confessor appeared :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Terraj Oknatis
Project Sanctuary
#1229 - 2015-08-28 04:13:53 UTC
So Im maybe possibly double backing on this whole "troll ceptor thing" Because you null bears don't like it doesn't mean its a bad thing.

I watched a youtube video the other day labeled "EVE is easy troll ceptor" and this guy said he was having loads of fun attempting to disable services in his ceptor and making all the people in the station UNDOCK to catch him. I actually found this to be quite hilarious because he was pretty good at it and made you guys chase him all around the system while picking off frigs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3uTVTBKb_E


I don't think his aim was really to take sov with the ceptor but to just have fun screwing with the station and making people do this crazy thing called undocking...

I have noticed that null seconites routinely will squirel away in their hidey' hole everytime a neut comes in local. CCP is actually trying to fix that as you will be required to maintain your own local grids with future structures.

CCP is just trying to get you guys to un dock and play the game without blobbing up tremendously every time you want to do something. you know bringin' solo back.

I don't really know if this entosis link is properly implemented yet and has tremendous issues outside of null sec space but in null sec i think its probably for the best as you guys usually have more than enough people sittiing in a station to defend it. this is unlike a small wormhole corp that logs in once every few days to perform routine maintenance.

As a side note i do believe the entosis link should be just to off line station modules but to actually destroy the station should require dreads and caps.

Random thoughts

that is all....
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1230 - 2015-08-28 07:46:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Harry Saq wrote:
by what logic you use such that numbers aren't relevant to said mechanics and quality of play.
And I'e already covered this. Hush now. Your posts are no longer relevant as you've made it clear they are simply "grr goons". Big groups will always exist, get used to it.

After having a deployment revolving heavily around fozziesov, I can say conclusively that it's the most boring mechanics in the game. There were several people begging for tidi to be brought back instead. The problem is that it ends up with both sides babysitting nodes while people rush around trying to oneshot or ECM the entosis guy off their respective node. For most of the people involved it's simply sitting around wishing someone would actually fight watching their miner mine a structure.

Seriously, I thought it was just boring back when it was just being defensive and thought "a deployment, hell yeah, those are fun". Boy was I wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kieron VonDeux
#1231 - 2015-08-28 13:05:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
by what logic you use such that numbers aren't relevant to said mechanics and quality of play.
And I'e already covered this. Hush now. Your posts are no longer relevant as you've made it clear they are simply "grr goons"....


Something tells me your Ego is getting the best of you, and since you have the most posts in this thread, its hard to say otherwise.

Trying to invalidate someone's ideas because they don't like you or your org is the oldest trick in the book.

It clearly looks like some are having fun at the expense of others with the new Sov mechanic. The same was said about Dom Sov. Some had fun there at the expense of others.

What is different is that in Dom Sov the ones who were the biggest were having fun burning down all the little guys stuff. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the little guys gets to have fun at the expense of the bigger guy, and the bigger guy doesn't like it.

Too bad I say.

CCP has tried to re-invent this game many times. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But, I must say they have really outdone themselves this time. They have made it so the biggest can't automatically have more fun than the small guys in Sov warfare. They made it so the small guy can have fun harassing the big guy.

Face it, the large orgs don't like Aegis Sov because it takes more effort from them as a whole to maintain their sprawling empires.
The little guy likes it because he can get into their areas and force them to react, frequently poorly.

The big guy wants to say its all boring and it was better in the old days, where it wasn't so much effort to maintain.
The little guy is having a blast at their expense.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

The big guy just needs to adapt and reduce the size of their claim to make it less of an effort to maintain, and the small guy will still be having fun getting them to react, sometimes poorly.

But the big guy will most likely not change and require their members to try and maintain an oversized amount of space and blame CCP if their numbers drop.

Just another case of failing to adapt to change.

Change is good btw, it allows the best to adapt to a new environment and re-experience the game, but there is a drawback, we sometimes lose the thick headed ones who refuse to adapt their play style.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1232 - 2015-08-28 13:50:05 UTC
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
Something tells me your Ego is getting the best of you, and since you have the most posts in this thread, its hard to say otherwise.
Roll I'm vocal thus my opinions are invalid? This is twice as funny considering your next point.

Kieron VonDeux wrote:
Trying to invalidate someone's ideas because they don't like you or your org is the oldest trick in the book.
Th guy keeps posting up the coalition graph as if the number of players my alliances chooses to befriend is relevant to providing feedback on a game mechanic I use every day. I was in a fleet outnumbered 2:1 yesterday, yet supposedly my opinion dooesn't count because I'm a blobber.

Kieron VonDeux wrote:
It clearly looks like some are having fun at the expense of others with the new Sov mechanic. The same was said about Dom Sov. Some had fun there at the expense of others.

What is different is that in Dom Sov the ones who were the biggest were having fun burning down all the little guys stuff. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the little guys gets to have fun at the expense of the bigger guy, and the bigger guy doesn't like it.

Too bad I say.
Even the smaller groups are starting to get bored now they've realised our empire isn't going to crumble. Even if that were the case and the little guys really were havign fun minig structures, you do have to ask yourself this: Why is it a good thing that CCP are making the game less fun for the biggest single collection of players just to make it more fun for small minorities?

There were lots of problems with domionion, but when it worked it worked really well. Fozziesov has just as many problems, the difference being that when it works it's still boring for all involved.

Kieron VonDeux wrote:
CCP has tried to re-invent this game many times. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But, I must say they have really outdone themselves this time. They have made it so the biggest can't automatically have more fun than the small guys in Sov warfare. They made it so the small guy can have fun harassing the big guy.

Face it, the large orgs don't like Aegis Sov because it takes more effort from them as a whole to maintain their sprawling empires.
The little guy likes it because he can get into their areas and force them to react, frequently poorly.
How long will the fun really last. The little guy is having "fun" right nwo because he thinks that it's causing a massive disruption. It's not, it's a minor nuisance and only encourages us to gather more people into our big group of blues. As more of the smaller guys start realising that the effect of this is minimal, you'll see them complaining even more.

I take it you've not used the new sov system then? I say this because it is in fact easier for the larger groups now. Defending is significantly easier than attacking and preventing timers can be done without having to have a proper form up in a time window chosen by the defender. The reason groups hold less space is they don't need to hold as much now. Each system supports significantly more players, so you only need a fraction of the space compared to dominion.

Kieron VonDeux wrote:
The big guy wants to say its all boring and it was better in the old days, where it wasn't so much effort to maintain.
The little guy is having a blast at their expense.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

The big guy just needs to adapt and reduce the size of their claim to make it less of an effort to maintain, and the small guy will still be having fun getting them to react, sometimes poorly.

But the big guy will most likely not change and require their members to try and maintain an oversized amount of space and blame CCP if their numbers drop.

Just another case of failing to adapt to change.

Change is good btw, it allows the best to adapt to a new environment and re-experience the game, but there is a drawback, we sometimes lose the thick headed ones who refuse to adapt their play style.
No, the big guy is saying "firing a mining laser at a structure is bad gameplay". The only reason the little guys "like it" is because they feel they have the edge over the big guys right now. If that feeling wasn't there, they'd hate the mechanics as much as anyone else, since it's waiting, that's all it is. Even your post here shows that, you've not said a single thing about the actual mechanics themselves being good, only that you like how it's made the little guys feel.

And no, change is not always good. There are countless examples of games throwing in big changes and killing themselves off because they failed to maintain their core playerbase. By supporting boring mechanics simply because you feel they benefit you, you are supporting the death of EVE.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1233 - 2015-08-28 14:48:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
by what logic you use such that numbers aren't relevant to said mechanics and quality of play.
And I'e already covered this. Hush now. Your posts are no longer relevant as you've made it clear they are simply "grr goons". Big groups will always exist, get used to it.

After having a deployment revolving heavily around fozziesov, I can say conclusively that it's the most boring mechanics in the game. There were several people begging for tidi to be brought back instead. The problem is that it ends up with both sides babysitting nodes while people rush around trying to oneshot or ECM the entosis guy off their respective node. For most of the people involved it's simply sitting around wishing someone would actually fight watching their miner mine a structure.

Seriously, I thought it was just boring back when it was just being defensive and thought "a deployment, hell yeah, those are fun". Boy was I wrong.

Lucas, if anyone needs to hush it is you, or atleast, perhaps think a bit more first. Coalition size is only one of my points I have been making along with several others (in fact it is more of an observation of a natural bi-product to a change in design), the coalition size just happens to be the one you reacted most violently and harshly to. Perhaps it is more about you than me in that regards. You are failing to even attempt to grasp the point, and honestly it isn't about you, or the CFC, 5 to 1 overall size should be as boring as it seems like it would be, just because you are confusing random tactical scenarios with the overall campaign doesn't make your singular experiences more valid. You are experiencing pretty much exactly what you should, it would be like me complaining about being bored triple boxing level II missions. I am free to do it, but because I can do it, and choose to do it, doesn't mean my opinion is more correct than the guy pointing out how dumb it is.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1234 - 2015-08-28 15:07:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas, if anyone needs to hush it is you, or atleast, perhaps think a bit more first. Coalition size is only one of my points I have been making
I've not seen any other points, but then I'll only read a paragraph or two of "grr" before I simply skip over the rest of the post.

Harry Saq wrote:
You are failing to even attempt to grasp the point, and honestly it isn't about you, or the CFC, 5 to 1 overall size should be as boring as it seems like it would be, just because you are confusing random tactical scenarios with the overall campaign doesn't make your singular experiences more valid. You are experiencing pretty much exactly what you should, it would be like me complaining about being bored triple boxing level II missions. I am free to do it, but because I can do it, and choose to do it, doesn't mean my opinion is more correct than the guy pointing out how dumb it is.
See, here we go again. What you are saying is "it's only boring because of numbers". No, it's boring because it's mining a structure for 30 minutes at a time. It doesn't matter how many (or few) people you have, the mechanic comes down to one person firing a mining laser at a structure for an extended period of time until either he gets stopped or the switch flips.

This is the problem with people like yourself. No matter what we say or what points we make, you keep just going "well it's cos you're in a big group" even though we're repeatedly stated why that's not the case. The fact that several small groups are also pointing out how boring whack-a-mole sov is seems to go right past you too. You're too caught up in your own prejudice to have a reasonable discussion about this, which is why simply ignoring you becomes the best course of action.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1235 - 2015-08-28 15:32:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas, if anyone needs to hush it is you, or atleast, perhaps think a bit more first. Coalition size is only one of my points I have been making
I've not seen any other points, but then I'll only read a paragraph or two of "grr" before I simply skip over the rest of the post.

Harry Saq wrote:
You are failing to even attempt to grasp the point, and honestly it isn't about you, or the CFC, 5 to 1 overall size should be as boring as it seems like it would be, just because you are confusing random tactical scenarios with the overall campaign doesn't make your singular experiences more valid. You are experiencing pretty much exactly what you should, it would be like me complaining about being bored triple boxing level II missions. I am free to do it, but because I can do it, and choose to do it, doesn't mean my opinion is more correct than the guy pointing out how dumb it is.
See, here we go again. What you are saying is "it's only boring because of numbers". No, it's boring because it's mining a structure for 30 minutes at a time. It doesn't matter how many (or few) people you have, the mechanic comes down to one person firing a mining laser at a structure for an extended period of time until either he gets stopped or the switch flips.

This is the problem with people like yourself. No matter what we say or what points we make, you keep just going "well it's cos you're in a big group" even though we're repeatedly stated why that's not the case. The fact that several small groups are also pointing out how boring whack-a-mole sov is seems to go right past you too. You're too caught up in your own prejudice to have a reasonable discussion about this, which is why simply ignoring you becomes the best course of action.

Negative sir, you miss the point again...and I am sorry that you can't read. What I am doing is called analysis of reality, I believe you brought the prejudice. Try looking at it from a different perspective and without all of the mental baggage you are carrying. Where are we in the three tiered process, why are we here, and what is still theoretically to come? When you tie all of those together, you might start to comprehend why the thing carrying the toaster shouldn't matter, and think in terms of how making it matter less is far more important than making it matter more.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1236 - 2015-08-28 15:49:03 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
Negative sir, you miss the point again...and I am sorry that you can't read. What I am doing is called analysis of reality, I believe you brought the prejudice. Try looking at it from a different perspective and without all of the mental baggage you are carrying. Where are we in the three tiered process, why are we here, and what is still theoretically to come? When you tie all of those together, you might start to comprehend why the thing carrying the toaster shouldn't matter, and think in terms of how making it matter less is far more important than making it matter more.
Roll What you are doing is called wishful thinking, or the soon(tm) principle. "The next patch will be the one that stops it being boring", right? Even though the mechanics for taking space will still be "mine a structure for 15-60 minutes". We'll all just enjoy sitting and ship spinning in space at that point, I'm sure.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1237 - 2015-08-28 16:45:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Harry Saq
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Negative sir, you miss the point again...and I am sorry that you can't read. What I am doing is called analysis of reality, I believe you brought the prejudice. Try looking at it from a different perspective and without all of the mental baggage you are carrying. Where are we in the three tiered process, why are we here, and what is still theoretically to come? When you tie all of those together, you might start to comprehend why the thing carrying the toaster shouldn't matter, and think in terms of how making it matter less is far more important than making it matter more.
Roll What you are doing is called wishful thinking, or the soon(tm) principle. "The next patch will be the one that stops it being boring", right? Even though the mechanics for taking space will still be "mine a structure for 15-60 minutes". We'll all just enjoy sitting and ship spinning in space at that point, I'm sure.

I have been playing this game on and off since the first month it came out, naivety and wishful thinking are things I grew out of long ago (tech II mining lasers anyone). It is what it is, and CCP are who they are, wishful thinking is denying reality and holding on to what was already taken away. I eventually hated Dominion Sov (because it always broke the servers, and grinding sucks, and and and), and was a member of the CFC because it was the most likely place to find fun (really it was because I came back to the game after a break and my corp was already in it), I don't particularly love Aegus Sov, but I know being in a big group with a huge amount of space isn't where the fun is going to be. Let go Luke....er...Lucas...Trust me...Use the toast Luke...er..Lucas...

...but seriously...if it hurts this bad, you are probably doing it wrong...and note, I am not telling you how to play your game, just laying down counters and numbers behind recalcitrant arguments seeking half measures to go back to what's comfortable as opposed to embracing reality, and providing forward looking feedback so CCP might accidentally do something sort of right eventually...and not taking forever to do what they already plan on doing anyway...and poorly at that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1238 - 2015-08-28 17:02:32 UTC
Harry Saq wrote:
I have been playing this game on and off since the first month it came out, naivety and wishful thinking are things I grew out of long ago (tech II mining lasers anyone). It is what it is, and CCP are who they are, wishful thinking is denying reality and holding on to what was already taken away.
Yet you hold out hope that the newly broken sov system is just a stepping stone to greatness? I've been playing over 10 years myself and honestly it wouldn't surprise me if the next big expansion rolled round and it was focused on something random like highsec salvaging, and a year from now we're still sitting with half a system going "uhh, where'd the rest go?".

Harry Saq wrote:
I eventually hated Dominion Sov (because it always broke the servers, and grinding sucks, and and and), and was a member of the CFC because it was the most likely place to find fun (really it was because I came back to the game after a break and my corp was already in it), I don't particularly love Aegus Sov, but I know being in a big group with a huge amount of space isn't where the fun is going to be. Let go Luke....er...Lucas...Trust me...Use the toast Luke...er..Lucas...
I liked it. I get that some people don't like the colossal fights, but I loved them. The thing is, there's load of room in the game for both, yet people seem to want to have the playstyle I loved stripped out and replace with what is effectively faction warfare. Why reduce the options for gameplay? If people don't like big fights, then don't go to big fights. I don't like exploration mechanics, but I wouldn't go to CCP demanding that exploration mechanics be removed and replaced with mining.

Harry Saq wrote:
...but seriously...if it hurts this bad, you are probably doing it wrong...and note, I am not telling you how to play your game, just laying down counters and numbers behind recalcitrant arguments seeking half measures to go back to what's comfortable as opposed to embracing reality, and providing forward looking feedback so CCP might accidentally do something sort of right eventually...and not taking forever to do what they already plan on doing anyway...and poorly at that.
It's not that it hurts, it's simply boring. It's a structure and you mine it. While one person mines it, other players just sit there and watch.

I'm not asking to go back to dominion, but if my gameplay style is going to be stripped out and replaced they could at least replace it with something entertaining. I have made suggestions to make the mechanic mildly tolerable, though I've come to realise that the biggest issue is the core mechanic itself, which makes it a bigger problem.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Media freak
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1239 - 2015-08-28 17:39:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Media freak
Harry Saq wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
Negative sir, you miss the point again...and I am sorry that you can't read. What I am doing is called analysis of reality, I believe you brought the prejudice. Try looking at it from a different perspective and without all of the mental baggage you are carrying. Where are we in the three tiered process, why are we here, and what is still theoretically to come? When you tie all of those together, you might start to comprehend why the thing carrying the toaster shouldn't matter, and think in terms of how making it matter less is far more important than making it matter more.
Roll What you are doing is called wishful thinking, or the soon(tm) principle. "The next patch will be the one that stops it being boring", right? Even though the mechanics for taking space will still be "mine a structure for 15-60 minutes". We'll all just enjoy sitting and ship spinning in space at that point, I'm sure.

I have been playing this game on and off since the first month it came out, naivety and wishful thinking are things I grew out of long ago (tech II mining lasers anyone). It is what it is, and CCP are who they are, wishful thinking is denying reality and holding on to what was already taken away. I eventually hated Dominion Sov (because it always broke the servers, and grinding sucks, and and and), and was a member of the CFC because it was the most likely place to find fun (really it was because I came back to the game after a break and my corp was already in it), I don't particularly love Aegus Sov, but I know being in a big group with a huge amount of space isn't where the fun is going to be. Let go Luke....er...Lucas...Trust me...Use the toast Luke...er..Lucas...

...but seriously...if it hurts this bad, you are probably doing it wrong...and note, I am not telling you how to play your game, just laying down counters and numbers behind recalcitrant arguments seeking half measures to go back to what's comfortable as opposed to embracing reality, and providing forward looking feedback so CCP might accidentally do something sort of right eventually...and not taking forever to do what they already plan on doing anyway...and poorly at that.



you eventually hated dominion sov. Just wait till the novelty of this new one wears off and it will be just like dominion sov boring for all involved expect on rare occasions.

I went trolling the other day for sov and it does as much for me as mining does.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1240 - 2015-08-28 18:41:15 UTC
Media freak wrote:


you eventually hated dominion sov. Just wait till the novelty of this new one wears off and it will be just live dominion sov boring for all involved expect on rare occasions.

I went trolling the other day for sov and it does as much for me as mining does.



+1

This whole 'discussion' is a replay of Dominion, people were RABID in their support of Dominion in the beginning, like some (like Harry) are about Aegis. i think this is mainly due to 2 factors, utter dislike of the ills of the old system (notice Harry says he 'came to dislike dominion', means he liked it at 1st) coupled with a deep level of support for the GOALs of Aegis.

The second part is important, because when people believe in a goal, the are more likely to support the process that promises to deliver the goal, even when that process is fatally flawed. Harry isn't alone, it took YEARS for the die hard Dominion lovers to come to their senses and see what we really happening, and by then the bad effects of Dominion were well entrenched in the cluture of the null sec population (ie the Coalitions had been formed, and matured).

History shows that you can't been unrealistic enthusiasm with arguments (that just makes it worse. Those of us who are fathers of now adult women know what I'm about to say: you can tell her how bad the guy is,how there is no future with him, how he's just using her, but doing so just pushes her closer to him. She's going to have to learn on her own and only time can do that....

...Like Dominion did to Harry Twisted