Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Misanth
Amarr RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Black Legion.
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 03:17:00 -
[31]
It's worth sniping this thread to say <3 Max50. - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen. |
Mya ElleTerego
Amarr The Hull Miners Union Random-Violence
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 04:22:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Vuk Lau There is nothing wrong with Technetium and its density and location. Tho it should be a bit more expensive, but thats just me.
1 of the number one reasons this games so fubar atm, but whatever. Alliance Recruit thread Alliance Homepage/Killboard |
Arthello
Gallente D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 10:04:00 -
[33]
1) Remove bridges from the game entirely. No bridges = less blobs because all those carebears needs to form up and travel the distance manually. A lot of stuff can happen on the way to the rally point. Titanchains takes considerably more time and effort to pull off. 2) Buff stealth bombers against Drakes and BS or find another way to fix the Draketrain problem. Increase the possible number of simultaneous bombs on the field and give it some kind of guiding system so the noobs also can hit something. Make the bombs less effective against ships with small sig-radiuses eg. anything without LSE's or Field Ext. rigs. 3) Profit.
|
Wombat942
Minmatar The Hatchery
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 10:34:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Arthello 1) Remove bridges from the game entirely. No bridges = less blobs because all those carebears needs to form up and travel the distance manually. A lot of stuff can happen on the way to the rally point. Titanchains takes considerably more time and effort to pull off. 2) Buff stealth bombers against Drakes and BS or find another way to fix the Draketrain problem. Increase the possible number of simultaneous bombs on the field and give it some kind of guiding system so the noobs also can hit something. Make the bombs less effective against ships with small sig-radiuses eg. anything without LSE's or Field Ext. rigs. 3) Profit.
holy crap these are some stupid ideas. how would it even address the sov mechanics? it sounds like you just want stealth bombers to be buffed because you are some wanna-be 'LEET WOLF PAX PVP CORP'....
|
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 10:43:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Arthello 1) Remove bridges from the game entirely. No bridges = less blobs because all those carebears needs to form up and travel the distance manually. A lot of stuff can happen on the way to the rally point.
Why do people just accept this assertion as fact? If people are going to blob up to avoid getting ganked they will do it while traveling 20 gates if there are no jump bridges. Stupid people are going to get ganked no matter what form of travel they use.
A bunch of ******s have latched on to the idea that if jump bridges get removed that goodfites in 0.0 will flow like milk and honey but no matter how badly you twist the logic around it doesn't make sense.
|
Artisan Botanist
Minmatar Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 10:54:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Artisan Botanist on 21/01/2011 10:55:14 The best part about what Beachura linked of me -.- was he missed the other 3 pdf files lol which work with each other on 'CCPs masterplan' I guess, I will sit back and wait for him and the rest of eve to see what else CCP wants changing.
Surprised Kim Jong Lau never mentioned it either, guess after the free trip his focus was on all his moon juice
|
littlet15
Amarr Anquietas Protectorate The Jagged Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 10:56:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua Most of the proposed changes would do little to meet their goals.
Much of what they proposed is at odds with their goals of increasing traffic to 0.0. Supercarriers are just the latest force projection tool. Nerf them and something else will take their place. What I'd rather see is some new tools or some tweaks to the Dreadnought to make them a viable ship to ship weapons platform.
Their changes to logistics.....basically is very much at odds with their goals of wanting more folks out in 0.0. If anything they need to lower logistics times.
If they really wanted to breath more life into 0.0 I'd do the following:
1. Remove Limit of Outpost in a System (Still just 1 per planet though). (More infrastructure helps folks feel safer) 2. Lower cost of Outpost Construction (Need infrastructure to lure the hi sec folks out). 3. Modify the requirements to acquire and to keep Industry Index, I'd look to halve current requirements. Its odd 1 guy can keep the military index at max but it takes a half dozen just to keep the industry at level 1..... (This helps provide 'safe' hidden belts to lure miners) 4. Introduce new ice upgrades for Industry Index. There would be one to get a hidden belt of each races ice, and then one to get a more normal 0.0 belt. (Helps foster local ice mining) 5. Double all static belts (More belts makes miners feel safer plus with the industry index if you got less than half dozen it becomes extremely difficult). 6. Randomly put in a static ice belt in each constellation in 0.0 that currently doesn't have one. (More local ice mining).
Obviously PVPers are gonna say, what's in it for us? Answer more targets. With more infrastructure and more mining in 0.0 it is natural you'd have more targets. It would take time though as folks adjusted to the new situation.
this + a dread buff, so they're useful for something other than pos bashes, would level the playing field between those alliances who have a supercarrier blob, and those who don't, or at least, it'd give them a figthing chance to make the supercarrier blob reconsider.
the problem with the supercarriers isn't so much that they're overpowered, its more that they're alot harder to hold in place long enough to counter quickly enough. i think the jump spool up idea would be a very large step in the right direction. If you go straight for a supercarrier nerf, we'll just find a way around it, or find something else to use. guerilla style hit and run tactics are just the current way the huge alliances have of combatting each other.
before you say smaller alliances have no chance, its not that we have no chance, its just that the small alliances that move down here have idealised dreams from reading caod and watching the big alliances killboards. they think isk grows on trees in 0.0 and that it's easy to pick up anything you want. those smaller alliances that put in the effort, that find someone to work with, and then prove they can hold their own on the field, those are the sort of people we want in 0.0 anyway. i don't want endless kills on ignorant carebears. i'd do highsec wars on carebear corps if i wanted that. i want a chance to risk my hard earned iskies against real skill, to get some good, honest pvp.
just my 2 cents. littlet15, Carebears with teeth and guns, we're still working on the ammo. |
Beachura
Caldari Exiled. The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 11:03:00 -
[38]
Originally by: littlet15
Originally by: Mecinia Lua Most of the proposed changes would do little to meet their goals.
Much of what they proposed is at odds with their goals of increasing traffic to 0.0. Supercarriers are just the latest force projection tool. Nerf them and something else will take their place. What I'd rather see is some new tools or some tweaks to the Dreadnought to make them a viable ship to ship weapons platform.
Their changes to logistics.....basically is very much at odds with their goals of wanting more folks out in 0.0. If anything they need to lower logistics times.
If they really wanted to breath more life into 0.0 I'd do the following:
1. Remove Limit of Outpost in a System (Still just 1 per planet though). (More infrastructure helps folks feel safer) 2. Lower cost of Outpost Construction (Need infrastructure to lure the hi sec folks out). 3. Modify the requirements to acquire and to keep Industry Index, I'd look to halve current requirements. Its odd 1 guy can keep the military index at max but it takes a half dozen just to keep the industry at level 1..... (This helps provide 'safe' hidden belts to lure miners) 4. Introduce new ice upgrades for Industry Index. There would be one to get a hidden belt of each races ice, and then one to get a more normal 0.0 belt. (Helps foster local ice mining) 5. Double all static belts (More belts makes miners feel safer plus with the industry index if you got less than half dozen it becomes extremely difficult). 6. Randomly put in a static ice belt in each constellation in 0.0 that currently doesn't have one. (More local ice mining).
Obviously PVPers are gonna say, what's in it for us? Answer more targets. With more infrastructure and more mining in 0.0 it is natural you'd have more targets. It would take time though as folks adjusted to the new situation.
this + a dread buff, so they're useful for something other than pos bashes, would level the playing field between those alliances who have a supercarrier blob, and those who don't, or at least, it'd give them a figthing chance to make the supercarrier blob reconsider.
the problem with the supercarriers isn't so much that they're overpowered, its more that they're alot harder to hold in place long enough to counter quickly enough. i think the jump spool up idea would be a very large step in the right direction. If you go straight for a supercarrier nerf, we'll just find a way around it, or find something else to use. guerilla style hit and run tactics are just the current way the huge alliances have of combatting each other.
before you say smaller alliances have no chance, its not that we have no chance, its just that the small alliances that move down here have idealised dreams from reading caod and watching the big alliances killboards. they think isk grows on trees in 0.0 and that it's easy to pick up anything you want. those smaller alliances that put in the effort, that find someone to work with, and then prove they can hold their own on the field, those are the sort of people we want in 0.0 anyway. i don't want endless kills on ignorant carebears. i'd do highsec wars on carebear corps if i wanted that. i want a chance to risk my hard earned iskies against real skill, to get some good, honest pvp.
just my 2 cents.
You sir, are a genius. I salute you
|
Tylvern Bison
Gallente Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.21 20:21:00 -
[39]
The problem is, Highsec and Nullsec are completely different animals. If you make Nullsec more like Highsec, then you are really creating Highsec for the Alliance that holds sov in that system. Is that what you want? If so, then allow for Sov holding Alliances to deploy npc type of protections (gate guns, automated drones, etc.) that only shoot at people once they have aggressed anywhere in your space.
I also think part of the problem is that Corps can declare war and fight everywhere without consequence. They don't use it to be able to hunt down people. They use it to gank people in Highsec. Make those that are at War still take a security hit if they are in Highsec space (.6 and above). Just that guns won't fire on people until their security status gets too low. Then maybe they'll start to move to lowsec areas to gank people (.5 and below).
|
Mecinia Lua
Minmatar Galactic Express The Spire Collective
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 06:16:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Tylvern Bison The problem is, Highsec and Nullsec are completely different animals. If you make Nullsec more like Highsec, then you are really creating Highsec for the Alliance that holds sov in that system. Is that what you want? If so, then allow for Sov holding Alliances to deploy npc type of protections (gate guns, automated drones, etc.) that only shoot at people once they have aggressed anywhere in your space.
I also think part of the problem is that Corps can declare war and fight everywhere without consequence. They don't use it to be able to hunt down people. They use it to gank people in Highsec. Make those that are at War still take a security hit if they are in Highsec space (.6 and above). Just that guns won't fire on people until their security status gets too low. Then maybe they'll start to move to lowsec areas to gank people (.5 and below).
While actually I'm not opposed to alliances getting gate guns etc., if they want to draw more folks out to 0.0 as CCP has stated for years, they have to make infrastructure and mining easier. Kinda like If you build it, they will come. I don't believe they'd need the gate guns etc though after all not looking to get everyone out of high sec but looking maybe to draw 10-20% out over time.
I appreciate everyones comments on my ideas.
Currently with the last patch it appears the Military Index has had its numbers changed/been broken/bugged. Though it might be a bit before everyone sees the effects. They did this with a patch a few months ago too I think but it got fixed so hopefully will again.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal |
|
Justyce Gazer
Amarr Endless Destruction Imperial 0rder
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 06:52:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Justyce Gazer on 22/01/2011 06:53:19 How about changing the sov system to where it is easier to attack and take control of a system the closer you are to low sec and empire space? You could do it on a tiered system based on light years. That way you actually encourage larger empire alliances to make attempts at controlling systems closer to their home.
As an example, lets take Providence. Say you have Alliance "X" operating in Devoid. They have grown to 100 members with an average of 25-30 members online an active at any given time. This corp probably isn't flush with isk and has maybe 10 members that have access to carriers and dreads. They decide they want to expand into Providence and actually hold sov so they decide on attacking the B-WPLZ pocket. Because that pocket is much closer to empire, it theoretically should be easier to conquer because of Amarr influence and DED influence. Whether it is resetting the timers so they are shorter or maybe changing the SBU requirements, doing minor changes like that would encourage more people to test the waters. You could also increase the cost to maintain your sov by how many members you have in your alliance, hence encouraging your larger, more experienced alliances to move out farther where even more isk can be earned.
|
enjoi
Gallente Diabolus Ex Machina The Amazing Onjoi and his Educated Rodents
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 07:27:00 -
[42]
Completely haul over sov mechanics, and get it right. The POS grind was crap, the current system of pile-everybody-into-a-system-a-few-times-and-win is crap.
Figure out a way to bring dozens of fights around like POS did, but eliminate the grind. At least with POS coming out of reinforced all day, every day, all week there were dozens of individual fights - each with the opportunity for epic. Now we've got gigantic ****ing clashes, three, four times a system, which while cool, hits hardware limitations. Use what you've got, CCP. Not what you wish you had. - Real men structure tank. |
Sun sue
Minmatar Point of No Return Waterboard
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 20:02:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Sun sue on 22/01/2011 20:07:30 Kill the jump bridge make these lazy ****s walk to delve.
Nerf Titans & Super Carriers jump range down to Black ops Range.
Make Super carriers larger in size Like. Maybe half the Size of a titan. Increase the build requirements and time to manufacture a S.Carrier to go with it's new size.
Introduce Attack Carriers. T2 versions of originals. There purpose is to hunt other capitals. No logic Purpose At All!!!! The Idea came from submarines. The Ohio[American]/Typhoon[Russian]class that carry the big nuclear warheads. These are dreads in the world of eve. Then you have the Seawolf/Virgina class attack submarines which are much smaller & faster that hunts the bigger Ohion/typhoon classes. So some specific's is they can deploy 10 fighter bombers only in siege mode which increase their drone bandwidth, repairing ability, neut/nos range and power comparable to a neut on a pos. An Attack Carrier's highs are limited to 4 high slots and have higher resistance but fewer hit points then their t1 originals. no corp hanger just a larger fuel bay and drone bay to fit 10 bombers and 15 fighters if you wanted to fill it up.
Boost Dreadnought hit points so it takes 2 Titans to DD them in siege mode.
Cut Jump Freighter cargo capacity in half in return cutting the build requirements in half as will. Making the over all work load of a Jump freighter almost no different then Rorqual. The Jump Freighter can just use gates. Also cutting the Jump Freighter jump range to a max of lets say 8.75 lightyears. Change/Merge cynosural navigation & cynosural suppression upgrade to do the same thing. when the upgrade is added to IHUB you can anchor cynosural jammer or cynosural portal at a pos in that system. Change the sovereignty bill for this upgrade to 1.2 billion ISK a month.
Revisit T2 production and tweak to lower the amount of Fullerides & Nanotransitors needed in T2 production and increase armored plate amount even more. My Eve Minutes . Vote for me for CSM.
|
Xorth Adimus
Caldari The Perfect Storm Random-Violence
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 22:43:00 -
[44]
Changing of sov maybe?
Originally by: http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2010/CSM_CCP_Meetings_15-17_12_2010.pdf The CSM feels that avoiding a fight should cost you, and notes that when controlling large amounts of space, it's hard to respond to stuff happening on the periphery. There needs to be incentives to take the fight vs. "let them knock it over and we'll go fix it afterwards", The CSM noted that the current sov system concentrates fights in one system. CCP wants to move to a more continuous system vs. specific flashpoint targets, but there is no agreement yet on how to do it. Greyscale: ôShooting structures suck, it is a terrible mechanic.ö
Someone put greyscale in charge. CCP need to put some gameplay back into the game.
Sov itself should require people to spend time money and resources to maintain their influance in systems using new POS upgrades, outpost upgrades, PI buildings, customs upgrades, gate upgrades and other things that can be added over time. All of which are destroyable/disruptable and have a cost and / or income and have an overall affect on sov and profitability vs cost in that system and on the surrounding ones.
That would then mean running sov requires effort coordination and smaller scale defence and raiding fleets to maintain or disrupt over a period of time. This would infact open the door to smaller more aggressive and active alliances who are currently more interesting in pvp then holding sov.
Not shooting yet another thing to reinforced over and over again, with noone showing up to defend it, would be a nice bonus.
The game isn't bust, the gameplay is due to unimaganative single point of failure game design with little gameplay content. Forcing people to blob up or lose is not good, be it the old pos system or this sov marker/SBU system..
Difficult to code and balance.. maybe, have you had long enough to do it, yes.
This is your sandbox.. and the cat left something in it 4 years ago that is stinking up the place.
|
the SNEEP
Amarr GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:04:00 -
[45]
1. Remove everything
game fixed pay me please
|
Vasili Z
Minmatar Cosmic Odyssey BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 01:34:00 -
[46]
This game is way too far gone to fix pvp. 0.0 is inhabited by ****ing scrubs whose first ship they jumped up was a hulk or drake and now that that's the majority of people in 0.0 you will never fix it in favor of skill over blob. Not that this game takes much skill anyways. -------
Going to kill you in Dust 514 (wait a minute, micro-transactions are dumb) |
Rakessh
Caldari Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 02:05:00 -
[47]
One way they could help the smaller alliances attack the bigger ones better is to give us our fracking carrier cargo hold back. If I put a couple badgers in the ship maintenance bay I expect them to be able to hold cargo of any kind. Kind of like how ferries work on Planet Earth, it's not like the ferry will deny cargo trucks to flush their cargo and only carry ammunition... Imagine what that would've done to getting mad cow disease spread across Europe :P
It wouldn't be as efficient as a jump freighter, but it would allow smaller alliances who can't put up POS and Jump Bridges (cus they'd get insta crushed by the big macks) to get stuff into the area of operation, so they don't get squeezed out of there as easy.
CEO Arachnea Phoenix Battalion |
Artisan Botanist
Minmatar Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 10:50:00 -
[48]
Why hasnt anyone commented on
Originally by: page 32 There are going to be some changes to sov mechanics as a result of the DUST/EVE link; what those changes are going to be have still not been planned out. However there will be iterations on the current 0.0 situation during the next year. In general, iterating on existing gameplay has higher priority than previously, and sov is high on that list.
Meaning DUST will affect SOV (which may or may not be good)
The minutes were from December so I am going to assume sov related changes and DUST will be out this year
Stop commenting on jump bridges and start commenting on your sov! |
Beachura
Caldari Exiled. The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 18:23:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Sun sue Edited by: Sun sue on 22/01/2011 22:20:05 Edited by: Sun sue on 22/01/2011 20:07:30 Kill the jump bridge system make these lazy ****s walk.
Change/Merge cynosural navigation & cynosural suppression upgrade to do the same thing. When the upgrade is added to a IHUB you can anchor cynosural jammer and cynosural portal at a pos in that system. Mixing covert cynosural technology in to cynosural portals alliances will be able to jump capitals to friendly space with active cynosural jammers. Effectively letting the good in and keeping the bad out. Sovereignty bill for this upgrade is 1.2 billion ISK a month.
Nerf Titans & Super Carriers jump range down to Black ops Range.
Make Super carriers larger in size. Half the size of a titan would do. Increase the build requirements and time to manufacture a Super Carrier to go with it's new size.
Boost Dreadnought hit points so it takes 2 Titans to DD them in siege mode.
Cut Jump Freighter cargo capacity in half in return cutting the build requirements in half as will. Making the over all work load of a Jump freighter almost no different then Rorqual. The Jump Freighter can just use gates. Also cutting the Jump Freighter jump range to a max of lets say 8.75 lightyears. Revisit T2 production and tweak to lower the amount of Fullerides & Nanotransitors needed in T2 production and increase armored plate amount even more. My Eve Minutes . Vote for me for CSM.
k, vote |
Rhes
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 22:03:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Vasili Z 0.0 is inhabited by ****ing scrubs whose first ship they jumped up was a hulk
This is 100% true. I never switch out of my hulk.
|
|
Fishslapper
Caldari THE PAROXYSM
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 02:37:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Vuk Lau There is nothing wrong with Technetium and its density and location. Tho it should be a bit more expensive, but thats just me.
Yeah... Okay Tariq Aziz Vuk... We all believe you...
Someone needs to fix up CCP's complete screw up - when an R32 rises to making several billion a month and you can't make a profit on Thulium (an R64) with a small moon, then something was ballsed up somewhere...
|
Headerman
Minmatar Metanoia. Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 03:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Rhes
Originally by: Vasili Z 0.0 is inhabited by ****ing scrubs whose first ship they jumped up was a hulk
This is 100% true. I never switch out of my hulk.
+1
I only ever gate camp in my hulk
|
DeadlySPade
Caldari Democracy of Klingon Brothers R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 04:10:00 -
[53]
I'd say the problem with 0.0 is abousultey nothing. null sec is working as intended, all the moon are working as intended. all the ship are working as intended, and sadley the lag is working as intended.
The reason being, CCp say eve is a sand box game,, 0.0 is surpose to be the wild wild west where the largest power controls what goes on in there space... if we dont want your smaller allaince in 0.0. We arnt gunna let your smaller allaince be in 0.0. let's take the north for example.. there 10 000+ of us and your 100-500 man allaince want to come play in are sandbox. sure you can say it your sand box but 10000 vs 500 really mean it are sand box and if we want to drop 500 super carrier on u so be it. We own the sand box you choose to play in.
lets see are moon, sure we have the most profitible moon atm... if you want them come get emm. nothing stoping you from coming and trying to get them.. the game has all the tools you need to take emm you just have 1 problem.. there 10000 of us vs your 500 and your trying to take something from are sand box.
let look at the supper carriers.. umm ya we can easly deploy emm inside are space and the regions besides us(except kavala and having to make 4 jump to get around ccp space). we choose to group emm in group of 30+ because it are sandbox and that the tatic we choose and the game allows it. you can't beat are 30+ moms well thats your issue not ours..
And lagg.. sure we blog feast and create lagg and the server cant handle it.. but hey that the limit of technology. but if we didnt keep pushing it past it limit ccp probally wouldnt keep upgrading there system to keep up.. and again it are sandbox there 10 000 of us and 10 000 of you and we both decide to blob the system well then that both are problems. and if it 10 000 of us vs your 500 well then guess your not alowwed in are sand box so go back to empire the sand box we cant and dont touch.
In the end ccp promotes the game as a sandbox. and cause it as sandbox and we live in 0.0 where it surpose to be the strongest have it easy and the weak dont.. i'd say the game is working perfctly.. I happen to like the sandbox i live in atm. i like that we have the sandbox option that ccp promotes. cause in the end instead of joining a small allaince i decided to join a large one so that i could play in there sand box..
so very bottom line ccp promotes it as a sandbox. it seem to me to work as a sand box so there is nothing wrong with 0.0 it is working as intended
|
Soldarius
Caldari Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 04:18:00 -
[54]
I think one of the big problems with nul is the ease of logistics. I don't mean cruiser logis. I mean the movement and allocation of supplies and equipment. Thoroughout history, the success or failure of a military campaign has often been decided by a well-timed attack on a supply base/line, or a besieged city/castle having or not having sufficient supplies to outlast it's attackers.
With the ease of long-range jump mechanics (simple skill train and a small module that fits on any ship), there is no effective way to interdict supplies in Eve. This mechanic has also led to increased mobility for capitol ship movement and large fleet warfare.
The current mechanic tries to balance that with increasing Liquid Ozone/Stront consumption for larger ships. However, most jump fuel is not produced locally. Instead, it is bought in hisec with funds generated by massive income from passive moon-mining, which itself is nearly impossible to interdict.
In Eve all ships are capable of warp. We have modules (bubbles) and specialized ships to use those modules (DIC/HIC), allowing for the interdiction of warping vessels. We also have fixed emplacements for jump mechanics (cyno bridges/jammers), and ships/modules (Black Ops/Covert Ops) that allow a limited circumvention of those mechanics. We have local thrusters, and webs to counter that. Of all the movement options in Eve Online, only jumping has no method of interdiction.
As only a ship in fleet can jump to a mobile cyno, I suggest a new module/mechanic that hijacks or impersonates the cynosural field of other fleets. When active, it should hijack the jump location shown when every jump-capable ship pilot within range views the context menu.
The base range of the module should be rather limited, and enhanceable through skills. Perhaps similar to that of Black Ops jumps portals.
Since this is a new and very specialized piece of equipment, it deserves a new and highly specialized ship to equip it. Perhaps a new T2 destroyer, or swap the interdictor's role from warp interdiction (we have HICs for it) and give them the jump interdiction role.
Alternatively, CCP could simply make cyno fields universally accessible, rather than restricted to fleet members. Of course, you run the risk of getting hot-dropped every time you light a cyno. But that is completely avoidable (don't light a cyno), and the potential for new tactical innovations is amazing. However, it won't do as much for intercepting supplies on the way back out to nul. They usually just jump to a cyno generator at a POS.
Getting supplies out to nul, especially those far-flung areas, should be harder, but not tedious. Shortening jump ranges would only make it tedious. Shorter jump ranges will result in more POSes being put up as staging points. And tbh, do we really need more structure shooting?
CCP, balance the jump mechanic. Give us a way to interdict jumping vessels.
Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.
|
DeadlySPade
Caldari Democracy of Klingon Brothers R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 04:50:00 -
[55]
Edited by: DeadlySPade on 24/01/2011 04:54:48 i agree having cyno open to anyone would be interesting. i think even having cyno gen open to enemy fleet would be a good thing. like if your enemy could use you cyno gen to jump into system and land on your pos the would be able to gank jf and stuff that randomly cyno in or sit there and wait.. and if they could cyno up your chain into the heart of your sapcing using them.. id make placing them more strtegic and they wouldn't just be put anywhere for easy acess to a system
and I think having a ship that could pull cyno out and make emm drop where your ship is or just stop emm all together would be intersting.. but it couldnt be over powered.. but i think a good system would be. i load the script or activate the module.. then I get the option of the two system i want to stop cyno from..say i pick system a as a start point. and i pick system b as the destination system and im sitting in system c.. anything going from system a-b in either direction gets pulled to where i am sitting. or have it where i activate the module any cyno with in the constalation get pulled to where i am sitting... and have it where the soveignty overview when your in the system tells you that the cyno are interfeared with.. but if say your a jf in jita and you blindly jump to your beacon with out checking you get screwed... and you could get hotdrop on the beacon from the scout in system who sat there watching
I think bottom line tho ccp should keep the nerf hammer locked away and instead give us tool that would make thing more interesting and give more tatical options. not nerf one way off playing and make us think of something esle. and i think a way to affect cyno would definetly change the way cap blobs work and jf
|
Hired Assasin
Amarr Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 05:11:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Soldarius I think one of the big problems with nul is the ease of logistics. I don't mean cruiser logis. I mean the movement and allocation of supplies and equipment. Thoroughout history, the success or failure of a military campaign has often been decided by a well-timed attack on a supply base/line, or a besieged city/castle having or not having sufficient supplies to outlast it's attackers.
With the ease of long-range jump mechanics (simple skill train and a small module that fits on any ship), there is no effective way to interdict supplies in Eve. This mechanic has also led to increased mobility for capitol ship movement and large fleet warfare.
The current mechanic tries to balance that with increasing Liquid Ozone/Stront consumption for larger ships. However, most jump fuel is not produced locally. Instead, it is bought in hisec with funds generated by massive income from passive moon-mining, which itself is nearly impossible to interdict.
In Eve all ships are capable of warp. We have modules (bubbles) and specialized ships to use those modules (DIC/HIC), allowing for the interdiction of warping vessels. We also have fixed emplacements for jump mechanics (cyno bridges/jammers), and ships/modules (Black Ops/Covert Ops) that allow a limited circumvention of those mechanics. We have local thrusters, and webs to counter that. Of all the movement options in Eve Online, only jumping has no method of interdiction.
As only a ship in fleet can jump to a mobile cyno, I suggest a new module/mechanic that hijacks or impersonates the cynosural field of other fleets. When active, it should hijack the jump location shown when every jump-capable ship pilot within range views the context menu.
The base range of the module should be rather limited, and enhanceable through skills. Perhaps similar to that of Black Ops jumps portals.
Since this is a new and very specialized piece of equipment, it deserves a new and highly specialized ship to equip it. Perhaps a new T2 destroyer, or swap the interdictor's role from warp interdiction (we have HICs for it) and give them the jump interdiction role.
Alternatively, CCP could simply make cyno fields universally accessible, rather than restricted to fleet members. Of course, you run the risk of getting hot-dropped every time you light a cyno. But that is completely avoidable (don't light a cyno), and the potential for new tactical innovations is amazing. However, it won't do as much for intercepting supplies on the way back out to nul. They usually just jump to a cyno generator at a POS.
Getting supplies out to nul, especially those far-flung areas, should be harder, but not tedious. Shortening jump ranges would only make it tedious. Shorter jump ranges will result in more POSes being put up as staging points. And tbh, do we really need more structure shooting?
CCP, balance the jump mechanic. Give us a way to interdict jumping vessels.
Please drown in a fiery pool of petrol (ingame).
|
SpotlessBlade
Gallente Night Wolves Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 05:11:00 -
[57]
Edited by: SpotlessBlade on 24/01/2011 05:12:28 Is there some form of mental defect affecting the R.A.G.E. posts in this thread?!?! HIJACK CYNOS?!?! sweet god man are you people kidding? OK enough questions. Hijacking cynos is theoretically the most absurd thing i have ever heard recommended by someone who didnt have to wear a helmet all day. Yes lets put our titans (50 bill) and our super caps (20-ish bill) and our capital fleets and sub capitals at the mercy of every 15 year old with 28 days of skill training so he can send them to a system they didnt intend to go to, like maybe into the waiting jaws of a red fleet. Yes lets completely undermine any form of strategy or tactic the FC has planned and make cynos like a crazy carpet. Get off the drugs. Yes im that mad.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 05:31:00 -
[58]
I would like to point out that there is already a way to interdict jumping. For a start if you scramble the ship it aint going anywhere - at least normal caps. Second - pop the cyno and watch the guy spawn at local sun. Third - drop a bubble at the cyno gen and gank the ships jumping in.
The list of proposed changes earlier starting with removal of outpost limits per system seemed to most parts be reasonable. I have myself in the past lobbied for the removal of Outpost limit per system as well, as in my opinion it would bring more empire building into 0.0.
For the logistic parts, most of the initial ideas bounced seemed not well thought through, as they seemed to large degree result in more 'grind' for logistical people who move the stuff in alliances while not really addressing the 'capital blob' other than adding a little bit more frustration.
Bottom line is - people do not pay their subscription to look at gate getting slowly closer.
|
Max50
Gallente Parental Control HELL4S
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 06:29:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Max50 on 24/01/2011 06:29:46 I read the Rage comments about making slower logistics and having "jump inderdiction capabilities". I got news for you.The problem lies there.There are nt any faulty mechanics when you jump unfitted-unscouted and PL is farming you untill they chose to risk. In any case game is more or less fine as it is.Its worse mechanic in it is the players themselves.Before the change of doomsday to a turret weapon almost every fleet was made with BSs and more.Now its all good with 500 drakes or even less because its not easy to wipe those out.There is no quality out there and its just simple.You have from one side 3-4 year old players flying drakes or "high risk"players that field supers but only if they have 100+ more in the field. Accept the fact that 98% of PVPers in EVE are pussies,01% solos because they are dragged-stoned and 1% is elite PVPing solo,but with 3-4 alts near by scouting.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 08:17:00 -
[60]
Well .. few vs. many situations (usually called blobbing by those in the 'few' side and GF by the 'blob' side) are issue of it's own.
However, adding pwnmobiles so the 'few' could spank the many is only rather .. temporary .. solution at best. If you MUST have one ship to pwn you WILL have that ship. In the case of motherships they build slow enough to not overhelm the EVE overnight, but as their numbers increase slowly they also become more and more important to have to territorial entities to the point of being prerequisite for owning space. There is more of them built every day than are dying. The more there is the more important it is to have more than your opponent so if they go on in their current form their build rate WILL increase. This in turn leads to the situation where 'few elites' will be again outperformed by the 'unwashed blob' - this time however all are sitting in pwnmobiles and as these things are pwnmobiles the 'few' cant just bring something else for harassment as anything else than pwnmobiles will be useless.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |