Stop Filament running

Lolwut. Are you even going to pretend to be anything but a useless troll? Pointing out that PvE ships don’t have to cost billions of ISK is not “forcing” anything on anyone.

So do a better job of catching them using the tools you already have.

good thing ccp doesn’t make changes to the game based on what it seems like to you

This all just comes down to you dislike the idea of there being a bit stricter consequences to using filaments and them not being get out of jail cards. this could all be wonderfully useful to create traps

This all comes down to you disliking the idea of not being good enough to catch a filament fleet. You have done nothing to establish why there should be more consequences to compensate for your lack of skill.

Removed some off topic posts. Keep it civil and on topic, thank you.

It all comes down to your inability to take the other sides POV, to understand the other sides motivation, Merin.

Why people play

In everything people do there are 2 kinds of motivations. Intrinsic motivation involves doing something because it’s personally rewarding to you. Extrinsic motivation involves doing something because you want to earn a reward or avoid punishment.

Intrinsic motivation is described by SDT theory.

Self-determination theory (SDT ) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality that concerns people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs.

image

Autonomy. Desire to be causal agents of one’s own life and act in harmony with one’s integrated self; however, this does not mean to be independent of others.

Competence. Seek to control the outcome and experience mastery.

Relatedness. Will to interact with, be connected to, and experience caring for others.

This relates to everything in peoples lives, family, job, hobbies, games. If it satisfies your psychological needs (autonomy, competense, relatedness) you will be intrinsically motivated to engage in it. If something does not, but the reward is good, or at least you dont get punished, you’ll feel miserable, but still you might be extrinsically motivated to do it. If neither apply, you wont be motivated at all.

I think there’s also place for some long term goals to play a role.


Both PVE and PVP players satisfy their need for autonomy by making a choice of time and place of engagements, corps, fleets, ships and fittings.

Both PVE and PVP players satisfy need for competence by learning ship piloting skills, ship and module attributes, learning site layouts, triggers ans spawns.

PVE players satisfy relatedness by bringing the loot to the market for other players to use. PVP players satisfy relatedness by interacting with their target, trashtalking in local, etc. Group players both PVE and PVP satisfy relatedness by being in the fleet.


The way I see it OP is being denied his autonomy by him not being able to chose time, place, ship and fitting anymore. Being denied competence as those gangs prepare to make themselves uncatchable. Being denied relatedness because it’s a no-win situation for everybody, attackers moved on, defenders lost time.

No reward means no positive extrinsic motivation. Negative motivation of not getting punished only works for limited number if times before reaction gets dull and is no longer effective.


If the only effective counterplay to anything is tethering, docking up or logging off, I think it’s on CCP to blame. They stopped adding tools, the sand to the sandbox.

I think deployable structures to deny filamenting in and/or out is a great idea. Which can still be countered by attackers by using gates and WHs.

As I argued with you in another topic, different people find different things challenging.

Having bling fit to run sites faster is part of competence need.

Having to switch to cheap fit, decreases isk/hr, it’s an attack on both autonomy and competence.

This makes the game not fun to play. People quit over it. You may think it’s fine and good riddance. But CCP simply cant have this kind of attitude. They already have retention issues. They cant afford to lose players en masse.

You may argue that it’s not a single player game, it’s not here to satisfy just some strata of players, ie PVE players. But it goes both ways. It’s not here to satisfy only PVP players either.

Thank you for putting things into a more defined style and set of information.

So what? Everyone else in EVE operates under the same constraints. Am I being denied my autonomy because I can’t (effectively) run level 4 missions in a T1 frigate? Am I being denied my autonomy because I have a short list of options if I want immunity to nullsec bubble camps? Am I being denied my autonomy when I’m flying around on my covops alt, see a nice freighter target in highsec, and can’t force it to sit there waiting for 15 minutes while I organize a gank fleet to kill it?

Nobody else in EVE gets this “autonomy” to force an opponent to sit and wait while they arrange the perfect choice of ship/fit/etc to respond, so why should OP get it?

Being denied competence as those gangs prepare to make themselves uncatchable.

Utter nonsense. Filament gangs are only uncatchable if they never do anything but jump in, sit idle in space for a few minutes, and jump out. If they ever try to engage a target they can be caught.

Being denied relatedness because it’s a no-win situation for everybody, attackers moved on, defenders lost time.

Again, utter nonsense. Filament gangs get kills when they are better than the opposition, defenders get kills when they are better than the filament gang. It’s only no-win because OP is bad at EVE.

If the only effective counterplay to anything is tethering, docking up or logging off, I think it’s on CCP to blame.

Fortunately this is not true and there is plenty of counter-play available.

Congratulations, you posted a bunch of words that have still done nothing to address the absurdity of your claim that me saying “you can use cheaper ships” is somehow forcing anything on anyone. Pointing out that an option exists is not the same as forcing people to use it and only it.

Filaments should be removed from the game, magic travel has no place in EVE.

The concepts of hunter and prey implies hunter bringing nigh perfect choice of ship/fit/etc to deny prey it’s autonomy. Hunters get to disengage whenever they see fit when they’re going after PVE ship. Otherwise it’s them who are bad at EVE.

And it may be ok, and working as intended. But then hunters shouldn’t whine about prey’s tethering/docking counterplay.

There may be scenarios where hunter becomes hunted. But should they all be like that? Can they effectively? Baiting is not simply PVEing in PVP fit. Its hunting hunters. You can’t suggest all PVEers start PVPing. Well, I guess YOU can. But that’s utter nonsense.

On the contrary. If you try seemingly impossible challenge and succeed you’ll get autonomy and competence overdose. I think some of L4s are quite possible to do in T1 frig. It will just take absurd amount of time. I heard of 5/10 attempted in AF, it took 4 hours. Effectively, no.

You don’t seem to have understood the argument though. Consider reading wiki on SDT. It’s not that you set an impossible goal and ■■■■■ about how it’s impossible. It’s if you’d get to decide what to do and how to do it, you would get to satisfy that need that session, would get to have fun.

Ok. “Forcing” may have not been the right term to use there. It was your usual trying to use absurd hypothetical and/or edge-case arguments to tell someone what in your opinion they should have done. And how they’re trash for not doing so. Better?

Utter nonsense. In fact, the entire concept of a filament gang gives the choice advantage to the defender. The defender is in (or at least near) their home system where their assets are kept, the attacker has to pick their best guess at the right ship/fit/fleet composition then jump away from all of their assets and hope they made the right choice. And the attacker has no idea where they’re going to land or what they’ll encounter when they arrive, so it’s a completely blind choice.

Hunters get to disengage whenever they see fit when they’re going after PVE ship.

Why doesn’t the PvE ship do something to stop them from disengaging? There are a variety of tackle modules in EVE that can do this, perhaps the defenders should consider using one or more of them instead of complaining about their inability to catch anything?

But then hunters shouldn’t whine about prey’s tethering/docking counterplay.

JFC stop making this straw man argument. This is now the third time that I have told you that nobody here actually wants the anti-docking module and it is only suggested as a way to highlight the absurdity of OP’s “everything must have a counter” argument.

Effectively, no.

Exactly. So why don’t I get to have autonomy here?

It’s not that you set an impossible goal and ■■■■■ about how it’s impossible.

But that’s exactly what the PvE side is doing here: setting an unreasonable goal and then complaining that it isn’t possible. And you’re complaining about “autonomy” and similar nonsense because they aren’t succeeding.

It was your usual trying to use absurd hypothetical and/or edge-case arguments to tell someone what in your opinion they should have done.

How the hell is “you can use a cheaper ship” an absurd hypothetical or edge-case argument? Are you people honestly unable to understand the concept that cheap and efficient PvE ships exist?

Ahhh Merin, still continuing your one-man war against all PvE my friend?

I quite like OPs suggestion here. I think it would certainly up the ante in terms of what fleet comps folk decide to yeet around the place. At the moment, you can form a wolfpack to hunt specific prey and then just jump around until you happen upon someone unlucky - or slow / AFK - enough to fall prey without any real risk to your fleet, as if you find an inopportune system/area you can just bimble about until the timer runs down and get away without consequence.

In a way, this is a reasonable balance to the tethering/docking option from the other side of the coin. However, for me this takes away from the far more interesting part of ‘unwanted PvP’, which is the guys who take the time to scout, set up staging and then run a proper campaign of incursions. This can play out over weeks / months / years, and is far better for the long-term health of the game than just random one-off encounters. If anything, risk-free filamenting actually dissuades people from taking the time to do NS PvP in this more serious and organised way, which is arguably the whole point of SovNull in the first place - to have grand running campaigns between groups over sovereignty rather than just one-off skirmishes that may or may not catch you.

To redress this balance and give more weight to the more organised groups, giving this little bit of counter to the defensive side - and encouraging a more organised (or at least more strategic) yeetfleet - would put the balance back where it rightfully should in terms of SovNull content.

Thank you very much Oskar for a reasonable and sensible post instead of ranting that its too different.

Thank you for admitting that you’re only looking for an echo chamber and the standard by which you judge feedback is “did you agree with me”.

Again creative criticism you’ve not contributed anything except that my idea is stupid to you.

I’ve explained why it is stupid. The fact that the answer to your question is “no” does not make it an invalid answer.