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) |
zelalot
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 08:11:00 -
[571]
This sounds fantastic but can we at least get more information on the Sov thing etc etc. CCP is doing a great job at building the hype but we still dont know how exactly the new mechanics are going to work.
|
fibergunner
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 11:09:00 -
[572]
I welcome the change. I will just spend my days not bashing poses but doing something else the Alliance has to do. To those that live in highsec this is not going to allow you to just waltz in and claim someones area. 0.0 mentality will not change mearly the mechanics will change. The weak will still live in highsec. The pirates will run around low sec killing nooblets and those who think they can own low sec.0.0 will be left for the big boys. After almost 6 years in this game I welcome the change. We will have up less poses to hold space. We will cut out the middleman and pay ccp directly. Will be much easier and less getting on peoples ass as command will get less pos spam for low fuel. Thank you CCP :). To those that think they will rip any space from a top 10 holder you will not. When you grab your balls and take in your 10 guys, make sure to have more ships. We want more kills to spash on our board. If your not in the big game you can go back to reading about it.If you can not get a 50 to 100 man fleet together within a very short time you wont make it in 0.0. Not just warm bodies but players who are flying the correct ships, listen to orders regardless of what they are. You do not bring frigates and cruisers to a t2 sniper BS fleet fight. Sorry but I am sure the vast majority of you would not cut it. Only soldiers in the end make it. The rest pick on nooblets in low sec or join failedteer and camp trading hubs waiting for nooblets that noone cares about. A 0.0 Alliance has neut JF pilots that do nothing but move product and sell or pass it to another neut account to sell. failedteer sits around getting tips about pwning miners..Your future is near, embrace it. Anyway Good Luck on that.
|
Alta Morbius
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 12:19:00 -
[573]
Edited by: Alta Morbius on 16/09/2009 12:20:41 The devblog mentioned 3 types of infrastructure upgrade.
1 - About Military Infrastructure Upgrades: Will it be possible to setup guns (maybe a new item) or some sort of defensive system around player outposts as we see in empire stations? What about around stargates? If a corporation/alliance has to pay the bill for a stargate makes sense to protect it's members when using the stargate.
2 - About Economic Infrastructure Upgrades: What sort of "Economic" upgrades are possible and what are it's effects? - Visibility of the goods on the station throughout the region? - Amount of goods on the market? - Outpost specific tax regulation to prevent market manipulation by members that have a jump clone in station from earlier sov. holding corporation or alliance? - Contract restrictions?
3 - About Industrial Infrastructure Upgrades: Is this about new belts/moons/instances/spawns)? Is there something more?
Also treaties sound like a great idea. - Will there be mechanics to enforce them in gameplay or will a simple player be able to void the treaty or break it attacking another player? - Will alliances/corporation be able to negotiate with pirates within it's systems?
Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the new stuff
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 13:12:00 -
[574]
Well horrified as I have been by the info about the Dominion patch my annoyance reached whole new levels of outrage when I read this:
"I will however say that CVA's apparent success in Providence was a big boost for us early on in this process as it showed that something like what we're aiming for could actually be done, even in the current environment."
So you like what we've been doing so naturally you want to cut the ground from under our feet and make sure no one else ever does this again? And yet reading the first half of Greyscales devblog it sounds like your hearts are in the right place - you just have absolutely no idea how Eve works. So I'm going to waste some of my time telling you why and telling you what you should be doing. (Before I do that I'm going to point out my experience for this as I'm posting big talk. I've been playing Eve continuously since pre launch. I strongly suspect I've spent more time playing Eve than anyone on the planet (please check it for me). I have been a major player in CVA/Providence - the only successful NRDS grouping ever and it's leader for about 3 years.)
You start out talking about "Emergence" and what a good thing this is. And you're absolutely right. This is what makes Eve different to, and far superior to, any other game out there. So things revolve around what players do and they reap the consequences of their actions. Well as long as they don't do too well - then you'll hit them hard! Alliances like Goonswarm and Pandemic Legion have hugely rich space that generates enormous income. So you want to undermine them by devaluing their moons. (It's not like you haven't done this before. Tech 2 BPO owners were deemed rich and successful so they got slapped down to appease the whiners.) Actually I don't see your attempts to undermine them being successful - quite the reverse. But why are you TRYING? They earnt those moons and that space. They fought for them. Why should they be taken off them? Providence is probably the poorest region in the galaxy - but you won't see me complaining about that or asking for extras. We got what we fought for. Stop undermining emergence!
You say you want more people and more smaller alliances in 0.0. So why are you making it harder to introduce the thing that does the most for them? Cynodampers. Without cynodampers there is nothing to stop the big players landing in force at a moments notice. Cynodampers make small scale combat possible to a large extent. They also enable alliances to put a defence against a large opponent. Removing them will let larger alliances squash smaller ones much faster. Indeed since anyone will be hard put to defend it's likely Eve will become utterly dominated by a few mega alliances with huge capital fleets.
You say you like NRDS. You have no notion what NRDS involves. It means letting every pirate you don't know have first shot. It means trying to track hundreds of groups despite the fact you won't let us have enough standings slots to do so. Now you propose to let these unidentifiable roaming groups have a free shot at doing multi billion isk damage to infrastructure (you said that not me) not just a free lunch at our ships.
You say you want more people in 0.0. Currently there is more money to be made in high sec (for most people). Our Providence operation is supported by our high sec income - we're here for our RP and the Empire - not for profit. Despite this fact your attempt to encourage people to 0.0 means a tax on people to setup sovereignty - having to pay for gates that they will have no control over and would in fact be perfectly happy to see shut down. Removing sov 4 defence will mean the end of any serious 0.0 industry for most people - only the biggest alliances will be able to keep such things safe. And they will do so by splatting anyone within reach.
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 13:56:00 -
[575]
You want to encourage people to invest in their space. How stupid do you think we are? You are making it easier for people to take the space off them - and those who have invested in the past are being seriously punished now. Billions in excess pos. Massive wars waged for devalued moons. Stations put in the wrong place. We've spent what - a trillion isk - on stations to give ourselves constellation sov across almost all our region and as many capitals as possible - and now those features are to be removed and we are to be left wishing all our stations were crammed together.
What should you be doing?
I think most of us agree that alliances and fleets have got bigger than is fun. Why is that? Mainly because it's natural. Whatever the enemy has you want to bring more. And more and more and more. What stops people bringing more to fight - the limit on how many people they can get there. And you have made it easier for people to get to the fight from wherever they are. Actually Eve is now too small for the players it has. By now more gates should have been put up and Eve should be at least six times the size it is. But worse than that you've made it artificially small by making it easier for people to get around. 5 things make it far too quick to travel around Eve.
1) Long range jump gates. Always a stupid idea I couldn't understand why you introduced them in the first place. They also cause the Jita problem. There is no real reason not to go there so Eve has one mega trade hub. What is the upside of that? The worse offenders are the inter empire super gates. Then the inter regional 0.0 gates particularly the ones around the edge of the map. The least bad are the internal empire ones. Ideally get rid of the lot but in that order of priority.
2) Jump clones. I want to be here now I want to be there. Press button. A common sense restriction: Make it so that when a player jump clones his old body is not installed as a jump clone unless the station he leaves would let him do so anyway. Why should having a jumpclone let him get around the stations rules? To make this effective you'd also need to prevent people putting their regular clones in any station other than the one they are currently in - or they'd just do the old style clone jumping.
3) Jump drives. Make installing cyno dampers easier not harder!
4) Jumpbridges. These are relatively short range so not too bad. And they aid the defender which is good. Leave them be.
5) Wormholes. Too random and short term to be a major problem. But also not a benefit. Remove the direct wormholes across known space.
You want more people in 0.0. So make 0.0 more beneficial than Empire!
1) Make 0.0 more profitable. Make 0.0 ore better than empire ore. Not just the rare ores but higher quality veldspar with twice the yeild. Surely it's reasonable that these ores are not so heavily mined in 0.0 and thus of higher quality. It would also help with your macroer problem. Most of us are not as tolerant of macroers as concord.
2) Tax empire not 0.0. Who is collecting these taxes in unregulated 0.0?! Wouldn't empires charge taxes - and favour their own citizens? All stations should charge small docking fees on foreigners. Not on locals which both helps prevent this hurting noobs and makes nationality more meaningful. Adjustable by standings. Also of course stations should not let anyone with standings below -5 dock at all. Isn't it absurd that people get attacked by a nations navy - and can then dock at that navy's own station?! Similarly npc pirate factions shouldn't let anyone dock if they have any negative standing at all. Why are they letting people base in their stations to farm their ships? How about a bit of logic?
3) Make cynodampers easier to put up not harder! The small guys friend!
4) Create more routes out to 0.0 rather than a few choke points for people to get picked off by pirates.
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 14:08:00 -
[576]
You want to encourage NRDS?
1) Give us more standings slots!
2) Give people the ability to copy another alliances standings if they both want.
You want the 0.0 empires to allow more people to join them and live in their space?
1) Stop making recruitment such a nightmare. Give us proper security tools so every second rate idiot can't sabotage the alliance. For example why if you want to let someone do work on a pos do you have to let him work on every pos you own?
2) Stop the free lunch for alts. Currently they are a no risk tool for scammers and general scum. An answer - create an agent feature like the one for locating people - investigate known associates. Should come up with a name of a random character on that account now - even if the charter you are investigating has been killed off.
3) Allow corporations more control over their own shares. Should at least know who has them! (No this isn't something I have had a problem with personally it's a general problem.)
4) Stop making things so easy to sabotage. Was it sensible that one person could disband the BOB alliance? (Served them right of course but not the point.) Yes spies and traitors are part of Eve's "emergence" and as such a good thing. But spies and traitors traditionally sabotage with information. They don't press a few buttons and wipe one side out. It's way over the top.
Heaven knows I can think of more to say but that is more than enough for now.
Oh yeah that pos upgrade thing with more sensible graphics lets have that. :) Why are guns floating outside the pos? With this absurd indestructible structure? Lets make the armour of that! How about they float in the shield and pos pulls them in when they stop functioning?
There are a thousand ways you could make Eve better and I haven't' started on the most fundamental problems. But this patch is the stupidest thing since you decided to upgrade tech 1 cargo expander bpos to tech 2 overnight.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 14:25:00 -
[577]
Originally by: DETURK When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep.
So if we pay for the Stargate we should be able to decide who can use our Stargate.
Even if we control who uses gate, black ops will still be able to bypass the gate as perhaps a Titan bridge will
|
Insane Nutmunch
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 15:08:00 -
[578]
I'm still failing (Obviously) to work out how this patch opens up 0.0 to Alliances and Corporations, who have up until now, not been able to get into 0.0.
There are still plenty of choke points and they will still be camped on a regular basis. No ones going to give up all those killmails just waiting to be posted.
"If you're going to tug on a tigers tail, you better have a plan to deal with it's teeth" I doubt anyone is eyeing up some of the "Big Boys" moon goo POS's just because they may lose Sov. "yeah I'm just going to knock over PL's Dyspo moon cos they lost sov and they won't attack the POS I'm gonna put in its place duh!"
NRDS is eve on hard, and if this is what CCP want in their sandbox then there should be extra rewards for running regions in this way. At the moment there are no mechanisms for this, maybe there should be a module / infrastructure which can be given to help an Alliance or Corp who operate in this way ?
|
Tiger's Spirit
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 15:36:00 -
[579]
I think its day came when the 0.0 games are ruined. I am waiting for laughing at a big one, when CCP dev team shows it again, how it is necessary to ruin something. More peoples to 0.0 ? They can't move this changes, but more superblob coming, when DD dissappear. New sov changes are ridiculous, that's change will nothing, just the big and rich alliances will win and the small alliances and corpes going to the hell or they will be part of a big ally. 1 or 2 big alliance will rule them all. Without DD and this idiot titan nerf (1 shot > 5 min) no one can stop, who bring somewhere a big +1000 or 2000 fleet. 30 frig can kill easily a BS, 30 BS will kill easily a worthy titan.
|
Jazz Scotch
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 16:13:00 -
[580]
Anything to get these large alliances to give up space is a great idea for me.
One question, If I claim a system at a dead end, can I not pay the gate fees, and when it breaks, not get it fixed?
|
|
Mara Intala
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 17:09:00 -
[581]
Since CCP already stated that you cannot control who comes through the gates you are paying for. how about have all gates in claimable 0.0 have a jump charge? similar to docking fees, where you have a flat rate charged to you when you jump depending on what ship is being jumped.
This jump charge should be paid to that ever alliance owns the gate, BUT will be effected by standings. Lets say you have Sov over a system and your allies have sov in the next system. you each have each other at +10 standings, so there would be no gate charge,
+5 you are only charged 50% of the fee.
neut standings get full charge.
-5 gets 150% charge.
-10 gets a 200% charge?
I'm sure all the people who would rather roam across 2-3 regions a day looking for kills wont like this. but it would help alliances have some control over who or what comes through there space. Not to mention the momentary lag of having the "You have been sited XXXXX.XX isk to use this gate, would you like to proceed y/n" would give defenders a little bit of extra shooting time.
Just my .02 isk worth.
|
Barwinius
Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 18:47:00 -
[582]
Originally by: Aralis Words.
This is a high quality rant and generally accurate. I applaud you. |
RevrendStyx
Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 20:11:00 -
[583]
Edited by: RevrendStyx on 16/09/2009 20:16:00
Originally by: Mara Intala Since CCP already stated that you cannot control who comes through the gates you are paying for. how about have all gates in claimable 0.0 have a jump charge? similar to docking fees, where you have a flat rate charged to you when you jump depending on what ship is being jumped.
This jump charge should be paid to that ever alliance owns the gate, BUT will be effected by standings. Lets say you have Sov over a system and your allies have sov in the next system. you each have each other at +10 standings, so there would be no gate charge,
+5 you are only charged 50% of the fee.
neut standings get full charge.
-5 gets 150% charge.
-10 gets a 200% charge?
I'm sure all the people who would rather roam across 2-3 regions a day looking for kills wont like this. but it would help alliances have some control over who or what comes through there space. Not to mention the momentary lag of having the "You have been sited XXXXX.XX isk to use this gate, would you like to proceed y/n" would give defenders a little bit of extra shooting time.
Just my .02 isk worth.
FFS you must be joking right? Lets say it like this. A gang comes into your region to kill a few ratters. They are -10 to you. Per gate is what 1mill cause of the -10 standings. So this gang of 5 has now moved 8 jumps through your space. Costing the gang themselves 40mill. They kill a BS fitted with t2 in the 8th system in your region worth 140mill. His insurance pays out 100mill. Now his entire BS that he lost has just been completely paid for and 1/3 of it by the ppl that killed him. This patch is supposed to encourage small gang warfare and pvp. Your idea bud removes roaming all together.
They also have to travel 8 jumps out. So in the big picture the more space you hold the more money you will make from the pvpers coming to kill you. Kind of Oxymoron imo.
|
ShadowandLight
Amarr Hammer Of Light Praetorian Guards.
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 20:37:00 -
[584]
Changes that I think would be Positive for 0.0 space
- Improvement in ISK Potential for holding on to space - Rewarding development, time, ISK with more features - not allowing an alliance that cant use space to hold on to it ( goons with 3 regions, unless they use the space they are holding ) - The next game mechanic that allows alliances to work closer together ( coalitions? ) - Love not having a titan kill a 200 person fleet anymore, that was a crap idea from the get go.
I am worried about...
- losing sov4 mechanics ( not the unbreakable systems part, but the ability to build super caps, get fuel discount for pos's etc ) - lack of standing slots for alliances wanting to rent space out SPQR Alliance - Commander |
X4N4X
Minmatar Blueprint Haus Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 20:43:00 -
[585]
Change.....it is what has kept CCP in business. Personally, I like what I am hearing (from the devs) so far. And I do not believe many are taking into consideration the "other" eve console game, and how those mechanics will play out along with this (or future) expansions. What I have gathered is that CCP has seen this game becoming a bit stagnant and in need of something to bring back the pew pew, new ways to make isk, and shiny new toys. POS's will still be an integral part of the game, just not the sov. mechanics. And when the devs said "think big" I cannot help remembering this new console game and planetary colonization.
Quote: DUST 514 will figure prominently into the CCP Games strategy to revamp EVE Online's system of galactic control, called sovereignty. It was originally discussed in the current issue of EON magazine that planetary control would be an aspect of changing how EVE's player alliances gain control of territory. Apparently, what players can do in DUST 514 will also play a major role in EVE moving forward. Hilmar explained more about how the terrestrial gameplay of DUST 514 will be interconnected with the ship-centric gameplay of EVE Online. Currently, player alliance sovereignty (regional control) is tied to maintaining numerous player-owned structures across different solar systems to establish a territory as belonging to that alliance, and as shown on the game's star map. Since DUST 514 is set in the same galaxy as the core MMO, with the same planets, EVE players will have the option of contracting DUST (player) mercenaries to gain control of planets. Hilmar said, "DUST battlefields will dictate who control specific planets inside the EVE MMO. If a player contracts a DUST mercenary team to go and conquer this district of a planet. Then ultimately he will be able to control the planet, and therefore the solar system, and therefore the constellation, and the region."
So there you have it! I believe this is where all of this is going. It will be interesting to say the least. I just wish I could find an angle on the current market! ôNow and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be piratesö -Mark Twain |
The Constructerer
Semitic Sciences GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:02:00 -
[586]
CCP, or whoever lackey parses through these threads, if at all: you should read what Aralis has to say.
To Aralis: excellent.
|
Soupea
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 05:33:00 -
[587]
Originally by: Hoo Is I think they used FW as a alpha test. The Sov Flag will be the bunker... the upgrades will be the Beacons or whatever they are called... but rather than orbiting them, you have to pop them. Upgrade by making more spots they have to pop before taking out the main flag...
Why oh why, does this give me understanding into why those formally known as "BOB", have decided to chuck it all and go play FW, (some insider info maybe). |
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 06:43:00 -
[588]
Originally by: Soupea
Originally by: Hoo Is I think they used FW as a alpha test. The Sov Flag will be the bunker... the upgrades will be the Beacons or whatever they are called... but rather than orbiting them, you have to pop them. Upgrade by making more spots they have to pop before taking out the main flag...
Why oh why, does this give me understanding into why those formally known as "BOB", have decided to chuck it all and go play FW, (some insider info maybe).
Yes and they not noticed it passed time, the FW it's failed. But they it is introduced to 0.0. :D Ubermegafail.
But the BOB got a positive thing, they got a new AF with +75% speed in FW. MEGAUBERLOLFAIL again. Oh yeah, they will fly with an "AB user speedy interceptor AF" Grat CCP, you just introduce for players a new SWG model ruin.
|
Arra Lith
HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 07:15:00 -
[589]
Dev blog "print 'hello, world'" at least give some details about new sov system (flowchart).
Getting sov will require anchoring bunker (marker flag) and guarding it for 24h, till its invulnerable. To conquer sov attacker needs to plant disrupting fields and guard them for 12h (when destroyed challenge is lost). After that bunker goes voulnerable and sov can be destroyed (cycle begins from start - attacker needs now to plant their own bunker).
I see some weak points in this system. Main is its not really time-zone proof. Defenders main activity is at 16-24 window (ie alliance is europeans heavy with people that got jobs). Attackers know this and start their attack at 1:00. Disrupting fields anchored at 1:30, onlined at 13:30. Attack on bunker is immediately followed, resulting in bunker destroyed before 16.00 - defenders didnt got chance to defend sovereignity at their time. If defender cant have chance to defend sov, system will promote attackers, who risks much less than defenders (only ships, while defender all their infrastructure and ships). That will result in system sov ping-pong.
Defender should be able to configure bunker at witch time it goes vulnerable. Next condition is defenders should have at least x (lets assume 3) hours to organise defense. So if bunker is set to go vulnerable at 17:00 : a) Attackers plant disruption field at 1:00. Bunker will go vulnerable at 17.00 (16h later) b) Attackers plant disruption field at 15:00. Bunker will go vulnerable at 17.00 next day (26h later)
To avoid abusing time should be changed rarely (at least 1 month "cooldown" till next change is possible, changes are not possible if bunker was shot at in last 5 minutes - to avoid changing it when its attacked).
|
Amarr Roman
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 08:41:00 -
[590]
I just wander if CCP will consider at lest parts from Aralis post. Just to ruin works of thousands people to see "just if works" is not an approach. CCP shuld read this, and more than this, to improve Eve, not to ruin it
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 10:40:00 -
[591]
Cyno jammers do not enable small alliances to protect their space from large ones.
A large alliance can incap a cyno jammer with a BS fleet within 10-20 minutes.
20 minutes. That's how much protection your cyno jammer buys you.
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 11:05:00 -
[592]
It does protect you from hotdrops though. Which I rate as important as being able to defend sov. Obviously nothing helps if you are massively outnumbered, which in the end makes sense.
|
Fred0
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 12:16:00 -
[593]
Hey Aralis, thanks for caring enough to make the points CCP needs to realise. :) --- "Cutting Edge 4 Life" |
Suitonia
Gallente HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 13:54:00 -
[594]
Restricting gates based on standings, or having to pay a tax to use gates in 0.0 is an absolutely awful idea, please stop suggesting it. If hostiles are roaming through your space the idea that they have to pay you is ridiculous. --- Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Niding
Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 14:46:00 -
[595]
Edited by: Niding on 17/09/2009 14:47:14 Ill just echo what Aralis said, plus;
Higher population density in 0.0?
Doubt it.
I belive the NRDS project in Providence has the highest density in the game and that comes from stability and predictability. In addition to earned trust over many many years. That cant be emulated thru gamecode.
The way I see this change is that there MIGHT be more sov claiming Alliances around 0.0, but there will be much more anarchy (i think) which will not encourage large scale industry or high density.
Anarchy=bad for buissniss=ppl pack up and go back to high sec where they where left alone.
Back to square one (or worse) for CCPs "empire building" theory. |
m3rb3aSt
Minmatar Advanced Component Research Enterprise GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 15:08:00 -
[596]
Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea!
a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first.
that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec.
|
RevrendStyx
Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 16:15:00 -
[597]
Originally by: m3rb3aSt Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea!
a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first.
that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec.
No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all.
|
LegendaryFrog
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 16:34:00 -
[598]
Originally by: RevrendStyx
Originally by: m3rb3aSt Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea!
a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first.
that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec.
No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all.
It is a better idea to let an enemy dive straight into your most upgraded and central system and flip a station (locking most of your alliance out of most of their assets) during a single weekend? With larger alliances this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but what about small alliances who only have 10 or so systems, with only 1 in the center being upgraded and valuable. If they lose that one system on one foreign holiday where they have work and an attacking force does not, they should lose pretty much every asset they own?
Also: to those talking about goonswarm having a sprawling empire. We have the second highest player per system owned ratio of any alliance in the game. We have a relatively small empire (2 regions) considering the fact that we also have almost twice as many members as the next largest alliance. AAA, Shadow of xXDEATHXx, and Atlas are far worse off in this regard.
|
Zendoren
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:28:00 -
[599]
Edited by: Zendoren on 17/09/2009 18:28:12
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane 1. A lot of POS just used for claiming space will become useless. Although I think that's a good thing, that's a lot of capital destructed. Current 0.0 holding alliances won't like it much. Will there be a buy-back option?
Just like to point out that with the drop of POS as the central part of solv mechanics, ICE will be devalued ALOT!!!
My question is if CCP sees this as well??
Because: 1) Worried that CCP Dr.EyjoG will quit CCP =P 2) Macro miners will be mining more ORE then ice after Dominion 3) IMO ICE's profit margins should not be nurffed (Ice processing is a pain to train!!!!!)
-++ |
Cathrine Kenchov
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 18:34:00 -
[600]
Originally by: Aralis Stuff
Your post sir, it is full of win.
CCP, yeah.... what he said. Seriously
|
|
|
|
|
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 |