Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:15:00 -
[181]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: ThorTheGreat someone should do chemotherapy on your posts
Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now?
Sometimes, when we have nothing intelligent to say, we say nothing.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Attrezzo Pox
Amarr The Bastards The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:16:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 09/09/2009 18:21:16
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently.
They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not.
By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system.
Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense:
If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.
I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares.
yikes really?
Sounds like in new sov they WILL lose something tangible. Ideally all the new stuff they add in to "upgrade" their systems. Sounds like a nice thing to get or a terrible thing to lose. But barring further discussion on that until we see more detail....
POS as they currently exist are a duality. They're made tough because you horde your money making goodness and utility into them. But they're also the "flag" that needs to be "taken" to gain sov. Because real life won't allow must of us to play 23/7 it would really suck to lose your pos just because you had to go to work. As it stands that's even more likely because it contributes so greatly to sov. That being said, alliance warfare based on current mechanics has boiled down to a capital-battles only slug-fest. To take the flag you have to bring out the heavy ****. Everyone logs on to see where the new pos to take out is going to be. You cyno in and click a few buttons. Then you turn up the speakers and go eat, play some other game... whatever.
This is crap for gameplay. There is no alternate strategy. To take sov you must kill lots of pos. That's the dead end they were talking about. The current sov system is TOTALLY dependent on pos, any addition to the current system would still be totally dependent on pos. The new system will be dependent on a variety of factors that can be tweaked. Allowing (should the need arise) a way to add or remove certain factors of sov mechanics to get the right balance. Additionally the binary you have sov or you don't protects from endless wow-level-grinding of sov. And makes it feasible and possible to wage war for both sides. IE a defender has something tangible to protect that is realistically vulnerable and defendable, and an attacker has something vulnerable to attack that's worthwhile and reasonably challenging.
As it stands a defender creates a deathstar he may defend it but meh... The only ones that matter are the ones that keep the cyno jammers and jump bridges up. And an attacker gets NOTHING from millions in jump fuel, ammo, and lots of time but only a slight change in sov. *-------------------------* PoX IS Eve!!! BOOM!!! |
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:18:00 -
[183]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now?
look at you
you're mad _____________________________________________
-Sketch, Certified Pharmacist
Need a Boost?
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:26:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Pnuka
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.
The system and it's resources or potential resources should be what is being fought over, not the markers used to claim them. If they left the space the same as it is now, and introduced the new "sov" mechanic only I think everyone would agree with you.
I agree. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:31:00 -
[185]
Away with the stagnant, spreadsheet, boring 0.0 crap.
GOOD!
|
MoonsOverMyHammy
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:37:00 -
[186]
I welcome these changes
|
Tia Tzu
Caldari G.E.A.R.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:45:00 -
[187]
good, sounds like this will give other players a chance to get into 0.0 without having to be pets to a bunch of carebears with 3000 titans.
Nice to see CCP is finally raising their game, I know a lot of inactive players who are seriously considering returning to EvE because of these changes, DUST 514 and the recent purge of ISK sellers.
All the vested interests can just cry cry cry, your bitter emo tears are delightful, no more just sitting on your fat arses watching the isk roll in.
I'm lovin' it.
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:45:00 -
[188]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now?
*makes a post on an internet forum*
Hell yeah man check out the size of these NADS!
|
Zeranna Lords
Caldari Petition This ..i..
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:50:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Zeranna Lords on 09/09/2009 18:50:27 This looks like a great change. Big Fat Bored alliances need to get a shake up. There will finally be a higher cost of sitting on 0.0 space. With smaller alliances holding space, this may bring smaller pvp ops which would be awesome.
Looking forward to seeing this in 2010.
|
Dionisius
Gallente Saiyans United death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 18:53:00 -
[190]
This is going to be.... AWESOME!!!!!! _____________________________________
|
|
Damion Rayne
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:02:00 -
[191]
----->Insert Random Complaint for the sheer sake of complaining because half the people in this thread have nothing else better to do, are never happy with anything what so ever, and only have the ability to flame, dispute and otherwise atempt to destroy logic and rational debate over proposed changes.
Anyway, I for one am all for these proposed changes in the Sov Mechanic.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:05:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Zeranna Lords Edited by: Zeranna Lords on 09/09/2009 18:50:27 This looks like a great change. Big Fat Bored alliances need to get a shake up. There will finally be a higher cost of sitting on 0.0 space. With smaller alliances holding space, this may bring smaller pvp ops which would be awesome.
Looking forward to seeing this in 2010.
This is what I am hoping for. I decided to take a tour through delve and querious to see what the goonies where up to and other than a few dozen docked up in a couple of outposts and two super n00b bubble camps it was completely empty other than all the other non goons ratting in belts and running blood raider missions. Was a rather interesting experience with all the barking about the 'delve police' and other such nasty fates awaiting anyone entering goonspace. So sov 4 and cynojammers makes defense faaar to easy so maybe now we will actually see players out and about defending space instead of docked up and spamming /b/ only bothering to stir when a cap fleet is needed to bash a pos or attacking fleet. I think nullsec just got a whole lot moar intersting now.
Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING
Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal |
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:15:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Attrezzo Pox
yikes really?
Sounds like in new sov they WILL lose something tangible. Ideally all the new stuff they add in to "upgrade" their systems. Sounds like a nice thing to get or a terrible thing to lose. But barring further discussion on that until we see more detail....
Nothing says you have to upgrade a system. You're comparing an optional and niche outcome to the everyday tug-of-war. Even if top upgrades can cause you to lose 50bil in a single system, it's pretty meaningless if 99.99% of systems don't have this.
Unless the gate disruptors are made ridiculously expensive, contesting and losing systems is far more inconsequential under the new system.
Originally by: Attrezzo Pox POS as they currently exist are a duality. They're made tough because you horde your money making goodness and utility into them. But they're also the "flag" that needs to be "taken" to gain sov. Because real life won't allow must of us to play 23/7 it would really suck to lose your pos just because you had to go to work. As it stands that's even more likely because it contributes so greatly to sov.
There is nothing wrong with that duality. Protecting the stuff that provides utility makes more sense than specialized structures with absolutely no other purpose.
Originally by: Attrezzo Pox That being said, alliance warfare based on current mechanics has boiled down to a capital-battles only slug-fest. To take the flag you have to bring out the heavy ****. Everyone logs on to see where the new pos to take out is going to be. You cyno in and click a few buttons. Then you turn up the speakers and go eat, play some other game... whatever. This is crap for gameplay. There is no alternate strategy. To take sov you must kill lots of pos. That's the dead end they were talking about.
An evolutionary dead end means the underlying concept is broken, which isn't the case. Using and destroying tangible property in territorial war is great. Territorial warfare in EVE used to be whoever happened to have the most people in a given system at any point in time, which was great for roaming gangs, but utterly crap for empire building.
CCP is killing the current system because they are enticed by the prospect of designing something from scratch. Outwardly appearances are more interesting, and they don't have to bother understanding the current system. In other words, they aren't experienced enough at playing their own game to adequately balance the stats which currently dominate sov warfare.
Originally by: Attrezzo Pox The current sov system is TOTALLY dependent on pos, any addition to the current system would still be totally dependent on pos. The new system will be dependent on a variety of factors that can be tweaked. Allowing (should the need arise) a way to add or remove certain factors of sov mechanics to get the right balance.
The current system is dependent on assets which claim sovereignty points, whether they're starbases anchored around moons or gate disruptors around gates. You're naive if you think the new system isn't going to recycle game mechanics. And the whole idea being DUST, where console players capture ground regions to control a planet and contribute to system sovereignty? Not more related to this new system, than the current one.
Basically, if you think the current system isn't extensible, you're drinking their kool-aid.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:21:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Attrezzo Pox Additionally the binary you have sov or you don't protects from endless wow-level-grinding of sov. And makes it feasible and possible to wage war for both sides. IE a defender has something tangible to protect that is realistically vulnerable and defendable, and an attacker has something vulnerable to attack that's worthwhile and reasonably challenging.
This is the first time I've heard of sovereignty being described as "tangible". Until you or CCP can explain to me what the defeated party actually loses when sov flips, its an even bigger grind treadmill since you have no economic realities holding you back from an endless tug of war.
Originally by: Attrezzo Pox As it stands a defender creates a deathstar he may defend it but meh... The only ones that matter are the ones that keep the cyno jammers and jump bridges up. And an attacker gets NOTHING from millions in jump fuel, ammo, and lots of time but only a slight change in sov.
And the attacker gets.. what under the new system? At least in the current system I'm satisfied with destroying a billion isk or more in uninsured assets. Even if I don't get sov in the system, the defender incurred real damage.
|
Kytanos Termek
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:25:00 -
[195]
Start agument:
Ive been with a major alliance, and in a major war for 6 months. POS warfare was some of the most boring, tedious game play I have ever experienced. Does anyone at all?, one man. Disagree that the act of bashing a pos. Not what's behind it, not any "Strategic value" or setup, or anything like that. but the raw gameplay and act of bashing a $((#star into goo for half an hour or an hour is some of the most boring and tedious game play on the face of new eden?
If just one of you thinks, "Ohhh awesome, another pos bash. I love those things". Please speak up.
I dont know about the new system, im one of those wait and see people. but I will tell you this, I am exstatic about the removal of this boring game mechanic. I couldnt care less about anything else. Atleast I never have to see another E-war star.
|
Jean LeCamion
Gallente Big Heart Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:28:00 -
[196]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
This is the first time I've heard of sovereignty being described as "tangible". Until you or CCP can explain to me what the defeated party actually loses when sov flips,
Pixels.
What do I win?
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:29:00 -
[197]
Originally by: ThorTheGreat
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now?
*makes a post on an internet forum*
Hell yeah man check out the size of these NADS!
By making real posts, you risk having someone smarter and more experienced tearing it apart. Your inferiority is made apparent.
With pointless one-liners, your inferiority is only assumed but never proven.
In terms of risk vs reward, you're a flagrant forum carebear and I'm a 8ft buff machine that chews steel and farts lightning.
|
ElvenLord
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:32:00 -
[198]
Edited by: ElvenLord on 09/09/2009 19:35:13 Lets begin.
Out with the old After years of game play its kind of obvious that linking sov to moon POS was a bit stupid just from the shear fact there is loads of moons per system. POS do have their purpose even besides keeping sovereignty, but by removing POSs as sov claimer after 4 years of existence, just because it was a stupid idea and you admit it was a mistake, needs to come with some sort of compensation to players/corporation/alliances that invested and risked huge amounts of ISK into those same POSs to create some sort of security/profit whatever.
How will you compensate for the wasted time, effort and resourses of players? Are you willing to pay at least part of the expanses that ppl lost there?
You know, in life one that makes a mistake is the one paying for them. And in this case we are talking of trillions of wasted ISK.
Planting the flag Great idea. Just like the one I was involved and was in the making for few years, and what do you know, it was sent as a proposal to CCP called ôExegesisö or if you like Sovereignty 2.0. How strange.
With removing of sov levels, how do you exactly plan on adjusting all other things tied to them? Do you plan on introducing upgrades to replace ALL of them?
And I donÆt mean just POS modules, but some bonuses and more important risk û reward ratios of for example ships/module or production in general. And donÆt tell me thatÆs a topic for another dev blog, cause IÆm 100% sure from reading this wall of nothing that you still have no clue.
Upkeep How nice. You say: ôWho makes sure all those stargates in 0.0 continue to run?ö. Well this thing comes to renting rights doesnÆt it?. You will rent star gates (directly), indirectly meaning systems/constellations/regions to alliances, some, that already invested huge amount in those.
What is it exactly that we get in return?
If you want to go into those kinds of relations you need to give something in return. We are the ones paying your rent, we are the ones investing in infrastructure, we are the ones paying for upgrading those systems, we pay for the overall upkeep and in the end we pay this game. As you always said risk û reward balance must be kept.
Home improvement
More expanses, yeeeeeeey. You already made us (players in general) spend loads of time, money and effort into improving ourselves and our homes. Then you decided itÆs a mistake, tear it all down, we get back to scratch, and now we need to pay even more to get where we were. Few question for now in this part.
How do you plan to compensate for lost time, effort and money? How much more time, effort and money is this going to cost us this time? How is your plan on doing rebalancing of moon mineral requirements in t2 production going? Did you plan redistributing moon minerals themselves yet?
Lets stop at these for now.
I want to blow *%#$ up! This would be nice, but as all other attempts, I have a distinct feeling it will fail on so many levels as usual. Some questions here that mainly result from game design in question.
What happens to capitals ships now with POSs as sov holders gone? How do you plan on keeping their usefulness, not to mention again the risk û reward ration of skilling, flying and owning one?
You do know 20 dreads are easily replaced by blob of battleships and its way more ISK efficient tbh. Any plans on compensating for lost time, effort and ISK if you fail?
Dominion Tools Well, only thing here I can say if this works it will be great. And judging by it the corporation/alliance management will finally, but maybe, get some improvement.
Iteration & The Future I do understand that you need to create some ISK sinks in game, but you are also the ones generating it. The trend of risk û reward ratios decay seems to be on a steady track past 6 years, donÆt you think? It seems, instead of sandbox, we are getting a quicksand box. Well done, well
|
Daryldutch
Caldari Caldari State 1st Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:41:00 -
[199]
Anything that makes me almost never shoot posses again is a win win situation. Looks like a promising new system that allows corps to also take effect in 0.0 which will make it better and more interesting. Making a -0.01 into a -1.00 is never going to happen i think but at least pulling such a system closer to it is a fast improvement and makes more of the formally sov filler 0.0 into a more active place. ------------------------- Some people wonder what insanity feels like, I wonder what sanity feels like. |
Kiri Serrensun
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:43:00 -
[200]
Edited by: Kiri Serrensun on 09/09/2009 19:43:04 This might get me interested in 0.0 again (first POS shoot was kind of fun, then "Okay, ten more to go, then we can move onto the next system."). And while it can do a lot of good if it goes right (fragmenting the sov map a bit, reducing the buy-in to 0.0, removing the Titan off-switch to playing the game) even if it goes wrong, it can't be worse than the POS system.
My personal dream is more NRDS zones, or at least a form of government more complex than "camp gates in, kill all non-blues". There's so much potential in 0.0 that's kind of wasted because the mechanics don't reward it right now.
I really don't envy whoever has to work on this, though. Player ratios aside, there's certainly a massive amount of money invested in 0.0, and it's going to get ugly if one alliance happens to be advantaged over another through chance.
|
|
En Passant
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:43:00 -
[201]
7 Pages of comments and not ONE mentions Dust 514... or any predictions as to how it integrates with this new rmechanic.
I'm thinking it will work something like..
This soveriegnty beacon will have so many shields, armor and structure. Each will be ridiculously high in quantity, requiring fleets to take it down.
Each planet that is controlled by your alliance reduces the (or increases) one of the 3 values of the soveriegnty beacon.
Certain starbases will probably provide shields or other buffing affects for the beacon, but all in all to take a system the beacon will have to be destroyed, and probably re-built (a process that will take days, while the system is in flux).
This would prevent dust from destroying soveriegnty, give value to POS's and keep huge fleets the thing to do to take sov back.
Sounds great!
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:45:00 -
[202]
ElvenLord:
* All that effort isnt really wasted though. All that effort got you (Morsus Mihi) where it is today. Without it, you'd be sitting in empire. So ya, the effort wont help you directly after the patch, but it helps you now.
* Is it so hard to think everything cant be infrastructure? There could be upgrades, prerequisites, etc. So you wouldnt be able to just plunk down some jammers right away, without first setting up base infrastructure.
* You get space in return for the gate upkeep. Isnt that enough? Think of all the costs in fuel and man hours you'll save now that you wont need huge POS spam! All that tedious logistics is replaced with an easy-to-pay bill!
* tbh I cant think of answers to the rest of your question, but I do know the devs have thought/are thinking of all these things!
(Note: this is my opinion/speculation, not insider info) Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
|
Needa3
Minmatar BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:47:00 -
[203]
sounds good if ccp manages to deliver
hope this finally enables us to get rid of fail blobs that only exsist due to numbers instead of actual skill
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:50:00 -
[204]
Originally by: ThorTheGreat
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently.
They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not.
By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system.
Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense:
If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield.
I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares.
someone should do chemotherapy on your posts
DC is 100% on the money. You don't know wtf you're talking about. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 19:55:00 -
[205]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/09/2009 19:54:52 double post :( Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:01:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
someone should do chemotherapy on your posts
DC is 100% on the money. You don't know wtf you're talking about.
You are correct of course. The devs and all should be looking to MeatSausage express and the November corporation for advice on how to handle 0.0 sovreignty issues. I know nothing about these things. I'll back off and let the experienced pros do the talking.
|
soldieroffortune 258
Gallente Trinity Council Seposita Astrum
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:04:00 -
[207]
In before all the conspiracy theorists claiming that CCP hates Goons and other Big Alliances that are not Band of Brothers/Kenzoku, that this Sov change is going to unfairly affect them, and that if BoB was still in power this sov change would never have happened or something.
/Tinfoil Hat Please re-size your signature to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes.Applebabe
|
Gekkoh
Caldari Rule of Five The Junta
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:05:00 -
[208]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe sounds very good. sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted.
i hope you make the cost of owning more then one region insanly costly. hopefully u will have to pay more and more for every constelation u own
I hope that they get rid of static resource points, as well as make the cost ramp up exponentially so it's not possible to have giant alliances any more. Blobs suck, and more flags to fly under combined with attacking resources will mean more conflicts to fight in, and more stuff to fight over.
Sure, it would mean the end of the current monopoly by blob system, but given how few Eve players get to to play a meaningful role in it, that's not a bad thing.
|
The WiCk3D
tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:05:00 -
[209]
Originally by: ElvenLord stuff
Ah, thank you very much CCP, I just LOVE that we finally get some so needed change to 0.0.
And this is only start of carebear tears, i expect lots and lots of such great posts, this will make my time reading the forums so much enjoyable.
|
Hester Shaw
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:05:00 -
[210]
Originally by: ThorTheGreat
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
someone should do chemotherapy on your posts
DC is 100% on the money. You don't know wtf you're talking about.
I know nothing about these things.
Truer words etc~
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |