Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CelticRanger
Gallente Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:39:00 -
[1]
On first impression the idea of being able to attack structures and take systems and stations in 0.0 sounded great. The exciting idea of banding together a great fleet and taking a system from the enemy sounded sweet and competitive. A dream for a pvp'er but after spending months being part of this system I feel like it hasn't had the desired effect and in fact has made pvp in 0.0 stale and boring. When you think about it, it's easy to see why.
taking a system pretty much involves forming up a huge fleet, meaning you sit in a pos staring at your screen for a boring amount of time waiting for all those individuals to finally get to the location so you can actually think about perhaps flying your ship in the desired direction. Then, after many jumps and fail jumps alike you eventually arrive at said system where you have the exciting prospect of sitting for hours again staring at your ship chomping away at ammo whilst endlessly firing at the fearful and formidable sov structures (make sure you scram it, just in case it warps....)
But! Wait! what about the enemy fleets coming to defend their home! I hear you say! Well the truth is most of the time they don't show up because they don't have to. They can just wait until your time zone sends you all to sleep and they can bring their huge fleet to come and regain or defend their sov without competition. So the game of sov sea-saw begins until eventually someone gets bored and the other wins the system. On the other hand, there are times when the enemy does defend, I hear you argue! and don't get me wrong the fun factor definitely rockets at that point. That is of course unless you get hit by the new favourite tactic in sov wars in 0.0, which is overload the system and win with lag! but if not way hey! you've got a good old fashion knuckle dusting fleet fight and that's pretty decent, perhaps you even win! awsome! well done you so now what... yep! you guessed it! back to ihub bashing and my argument is this just makes the whole thing boring and not worth anyone's time because it's just not fun.
What next!
Well this is where I want you to comment. Come up with some crazy idea's that would be better and just more fun for everyone. No more sitting in one spot shooting at something without that big fleshy thing that sits behind all the things that are worth shooting at in the game. Who knows maybe a miracle might happen and ccp might see someone's idea and everything will get better for everyone.
P.S. Oh! I forgot to say! please don't suggest nerfing anything I'm a big believer of changing by adding than taking away. Positives always better ;)
|
Montgomery Crabapple
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 21:37:00 -
[2]
Get rid of Sov entirely. It's a rump-smackingly ******ed game mechanic for 0.0. You shouldn't need sov to do anything, anywhere in 0.0. Fleets should be able to blow stuff up, including outposts :p.
|
rumncock
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 06:56:00 -
[3]
First off, lag tactic in eve is probably older than you so hardly new.
It is however the biggest reason the sov war is broken. In small engagments the suprise factor of the fleet jumping in gives them an advantage. The surgical hot drop. In big engagments it's the otherway around though, the fc that orders his fleet to jump in is essentually risking that his entire fleet gets anihilated while loading grid, best case scenario this only happens to 1/3d of his fleet.
With stakes already high ofcourse this leads to the passivness and blueballing we all hate. Most fleets and fc's are dying for a good fight in my experience
Keep mechanics mostly the same, perhaps just a slight bit less turtle like
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 07:40:00 -
[4]
yeah, R.A.G.E is under pressure of DRF, suddenly the sov is boring and sucky. :-D :-D :-D But you enjoyed the tactics you describe all the years before, as you were on the other side, right?
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 08:53:00 -
[5]
TZ ping-pong was a feature of the last sov system EVE had as well.
|
Azhpol
Gallente Casa Del Wombat
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 09:13:00 -
[6]
Give SBUs HPs comparable to a rat BS, so they can be taken down by one guy, and have the anchor and online time total out to about 5 minutes. Put the on the other side of the gates(adjacent system to the TCU you want to kill) and blob problem is at least diffused. will force people to keep defense fleets on the TCUs while the SBU is being taken down.
Now for the other half, making the defending fleet need to attack the SBUs first, instead of just blobbing the TCU in defense. ----------------------------------------------- Market help thread, or troll magnet? |
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 09:45:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Target Painter on 12/04/2011 09:45:45
Originally by: Azhpol Give SBUs HPs comparable to a rat BS, so they can be taken down by one guy, and have the anchor and online time total out to about 5 minutes. Put the on the other side of the gates(adjacent system to the TCU you want to kill) and blob problem is at least diffused. will force people to keep defense fleets on the TCUs while the SBU is being taken down.
-6 SBs decloak, SBU down. -A wild fleet of 10ish arty Ruptures appear, shoot a volley, die horribly, SBU down.
Quote: Now for the other half, making the defending fleet need to attack the SBUs first, instead of just blobbing the TCU in defense.
It really does not matter which inanimate object needs to be serviced first, most of the time the fight isn't even on-grid of it, sometimes not even in the same system.
|
TheJacobiteHNTR
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 12:00:00 -
[8]
It does drag allot and a fundamental aspect of the game that could be better. Say they introduced something interresting like a Titan module with the ability to fire off a claim beacon and in order to take a system an alliance must have a certain majority of local with your fleet or allied ect. Thats just a random idea but something along the lines of moving away from firing at game based structures and more firing at each other or something with a real person controlling it. |
CelticRanger
Gallente Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 12:07:00 -
[9]
Originally by: rumn**** First off, lag tactic in eve is probably older than you so hardly new.
It is however the biggest reason the sov war is broken. In small engagments the suprise factor of the fleet jumping in gives them an advantage. The surgical hot drop. In big engagments it's the otherway around though, the fc that orders his fleet to jump in is essentually risking that his entire fleet gets anihilated while loading grid, best case scenario this only happens to 1/3d of his fleet.
With stakes already high ofcourse this leads to the passivness and blueballing we all hate. Most fleets and fc's are dying for a good fight in my experience
Keep mechanics mostly the same, perhaps just a slight bit less turtle like
Hey man, thought there would be a comment about RAGE ;) but nah I'm purely talking as a lover of gaming rather than a member of an alliance right now. I just think sov wars could be more fun and i understand that lag has been a tactic for a long time in the game and if they can't solve it work around it. Could be more fun for everyone. Thanks for the input though :)
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 13:42:00 -
[10]
While there is definitely a need for timers on POSes due to play time issues, why are there sovereignty structures to begin with? Why should POSes determine who owns a system?
Get rid of sovereignty completely. Get rid of artificial mechanics that protect the defender.
If somebody or some alliance has the balls to put up system improvements, cyno jammers, jump bridges, stations, etc... anywhere in New Eden, then the only thing stopping them should be other players.
|
|
Brother Galladrinal
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 14:05:00 -
[11]
Keep sov system just get rid of timers full stop, then alliances would HAVE to come and defend rather than wait for the next timer. Would make the game much more interesting strategically.
|
Montgomery Crabapple
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 14:35:00 -
[12]
Why do you even need a sovereignty system? Seriously, I don't get it. Is it JUST so the in-game map can show "NV WOZ 'ERE"? What's the point of it? It's a complete mystery to me.
|
Batelle
do you
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 14:57:00 -
[13]
it works better than the last system ccp had.
--------------------------------------------- EC-P8R... You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. |
rumncock
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 15:17:00 -
[14]
There's solid reasons why it takes a while to take sov down, if lag was fixed, max stront was set to 24h and stations only needed 1 reff (24h max) to be taken down i'd say it was perfect. No "crazy" new mechanics needed.
The ones that want it all just removed just suck at building anything solid themself, that's fine I guess just don't try to convince me destroying and colapsing is the only part of the game. And even if you don't like that look at it as bigger and harder card houses to smash :)
Again, the stuff preventing fights to happen when both parts are willing is the issue.
|
Buster Gonads
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 16:29:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Batelle it works better than the last system ccp had.
The last system being what? Plant x POS's in system Y for Z hours and get sov? The question still hasn't been answered as to why you need a "sov" concept at all...
|
Amlaith
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 17:29:00 -
[16]
Force real supply line management. Ability to disable gate routes by small (black ops) forces. Push the fight across systems. Commitment of large fleets takes time.
Use Incursion mechanics to give defenders advantage based on claim points. The more spread out the fights are the quicker bonuses are eliminated but regained over time of inactivy. Build up time for claim of the territory. Incentive for invading force to keep pressure in off peak hours.
Finally restrict by mass through cyno similarly to WH's 3 capitals or 1 super capital per cycle.
Crazy Ideas. But I am wearing nomex so flame away
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 17:36:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Batelle it works better than the last system ccp had.
Doesn't actually say much if you ever participated in 12hr POS kiting assaults of old ..
It is 'fail' because it is EHP based, it leaves just the one avenue to victory - MOAR DUDES! No tactics, no planning, no intelligence - just brute force.
Replace it with an objective based system comprised of elements from FW (size restrictions) and Incursions (constellation wide, differing tasks). Blob should/would only be needed to achieve initial space superiority (ie. smash initial defence fleet) with all subsequent being conducted as small gang/fleet warfare.
|
Aldo Bridger
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 19:26:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Buster Gonads
Originally by: Batelle it works better than the last system ccp had.
The last system being what? Plant x POS's in system Y for Z hours and get sov? The question still hasn't been answered as to why you need a "sov" concept at all...
To build more supers so that they can maintain/take more sov... DUH!
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 06:46:00 -
[19]
Originally by: X Gallentius Edited by: X Gallentius on 12/04/2011 13:51:13 While there is definitely a need for timers on POSes due to play time issues, why are there sovereignty structures to begin with? Why should POSes determine who owns a system?
Get rid of sovereignty completely. Get rid of artificial mechanics that protect the defender.
If somebody or some alliance has the balls to put up system improvements, cyno jammers, jump bridges, stations, etc... anywhere in 0.0, then the only thing stopping them should be other players.
this ... will make null space more dynamic and fragmented. Less naptrain moguls, more pvpers. No static map for years. Raiding parties on real assets, defence fleets guarding just the right amount of space they can handle. Less supercaps, because alliances will be able to produce less of them. Sounds pure fun to me. Every few months eve players are calling for this change and ccp allways listen to alliance bosses.
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 07:03:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Montgomery Crabapple Why do you even need a sovereignty system? Seriously, I don't get it. Is it JUST so the in-game map can show "NV WOZ 'ERE"? What's the point of it? It's a complete mystery to me.
It's a mystery to me why some people get angry or confused that other people may have different playstyles or objectives than their own.
|
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 07:29:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Target Painter on 13/04/2011 07:34:12 I too, have no idea why lowsec guys are commenting on this.
But in the interest of explaining exactly why it's timer-based, not all major blocs have 23/7 timezone coverage. The DRF largely exists in the 6 hours after DT, the NC and DC and the only blocs with 18 hour (roughly coverage), without timers and TZ-based sov mechanics to slow their advance, every day the DRF would wake up sovless, with everything in their shining empire burned to the ground. The same would happen to the NC as well, just in a different TZ.
Which is fine for lowsec guys, because they aren't familiar with the message, "You cannot dock here, because the executor corp does not like you."
|
Montgomery Crabapple
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 07:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Emperor Cheney
Originally by: Montgomery Crabapple Why do you even need a sovereignty system? Seriously, I don't get it. Is it JUST so the in-game map can show "NV WOZ 'ERE"? What's the point of it? It's a complete mystery to me.
It's a mystery to me why some people get angry or confused that other people may have different playstyles or objectives than their own.
You didn't answer the question as to why it's needed in order for you to "achieve your objective". It seems to me that your objective is to use the game mechanic, which is a circular argument. I have absolutely no idea why the previous system was implemented either. 0.0 was better when it was a real sandbox, without artificial constructs like sov.
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 08:35:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Montgomery Crabapple You didn't answer the question as to why it's needed in order for you to "achieve your objective".
The objective is large scale fleet fights. Everything about the sov system as it stands today is to increase the scale of conflict of 0.0. Anoms that more or less **** isk directly into the pockets of individual members, outright OP supercapitals that can only be constructed in sov systems, stations with no repair fees, etc.
Quote: 0.0 was better when it was a real sandbox, without artificial constructs like sov.
It was also a barren wasteland, although large swathes of it are now (like anywhere in 0.0 that isn't the North or West during the USTZ) thanks to mechanics preventing the side with 2 timezones from steamrolling the guy with only one.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 09:05:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Target Painter Replace the sandbox of EVE for some wonky lowsec system to ensure "fair" fights... hmmm no thank you.
I was unaware that 'sandbox' meant "ability to fit ones entire extended family and no other way to play should exist" .. thank you for enlightening me
Has nothing to do with fair fights, and everything to do with fun/challenging fights. How many of the blob-fests can you honestly say were fun/challenging even if they were 50/50 (ie. fair)?
FW/lol-lowsec for all its flaws do have a serious leg up on 'traditional' warfare in the fun/challenging department. Individual skills and decisions actually matter when you move to gang size from fleet size .. any trained monkey can press a button when told to (blob-fare = FC competition).
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 10:00:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Montgomery Crabapple
Originally by: Emperor Cheney
Originally by: Montgomery Crabapple Why do you even need a sovereignty system? Seriously, I don't get it. Is it JUST so the in-game map can show "NV WOZ 'ERE"? What's the point of it? It's a complete mystery to me.
It's a mystery to me why some people get angry or confused that other people may have different playstyles or objectives than their own.
You didn't answer the question as to why it's needed in order for you to "achieve your objective". It seems to me that your objective is to use the game mechanic, which is a circular argument. I have absolutely no idea why the previous system was implemented either. 0.0 was better when it was a real sandbox, without artificial constructs like sov.
I'm not in nullsec. I also don't explore anomalies, live in wormholes, run level 4s in a pimped out marauder or gate camp Rancer. At the same time, I manage to not waste any part of my life being concerned that someone, somewhere is playing the game differently than I choose to.
Are you aware that there are several nullsec regions where players cannot take sov? Many who share your viewpoints on what is fun choose to live there. You can too! Other people choose to play in nullsec where they can claim space. You probably shouldn't play there! It does not sound like that matches your chosen playstyle at all.
|
Kriegman
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 12:27:00 -
[26]
If you don't like SOV so much, live in NPC 0.0 space. Plenty of 0.0 dwellers do just that.
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.04.14 08:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida I was unaware that 'sandbox' meant "ability to fit ones entire extended family and no other way to play should exist" .. thank you for enlightening me
Ironically, there are nullsec entities that eschew the numbers approach and win.
Quote: Has nothing to do with fair fights, and everything to do with fun/challenging fights. How many of the blob-fests can you honestly say were fun/challenging even if they were 50/50 (ie. fair)?
49-, NOL-, C-J, EC-, trying to break a Goon hellcamp, the cap fights, etc.
Quote: FW/lol-lowsec for all its flaws do have a serious leg up on 'traditional' warfare in the fun/challenging department.
What is fun for you is not to me. I like being able to tackle stuff coming off gates in a ceptor, regardless of sec status. I find it fun being able to force fights by raepcaging stations and staging POSes. It's a challenge when the typical space I roam can throw together a fleet of 80 on 15 minutes notice in their prime to face my gang of 15-25.
I'm sorry the taco is too spicy for you. But don't tell me I shouldn't put the sauce on mine, because I sure as hell don't pour it on yours.
Quote: Individual skills and decisions actually matter when you move to gang size from fleet size .. any trained monkey can press a button when told to (blob-fare = FC competition).
Once again, why are you complaining about the (perceived) requirements of sov warfare when you said before you were uninterested in holding sov?
|
Rika Jones
|
Posted - 2011.04.14 18:56:00 -
[28]
Originally by: CelticRanger On first impression the idea of being able to attack structures and take systems and stations in 0.0 sounded great. The exciting idea of banding together a great fleet and taking a system from the enemy sounded sweet and competitive.
It is. I have big fun doing it.
Originally by: CelticRanger
A dream for a pvp'er but after spending months being part of this system I feel like it hasn't had the desired effect and in fact has made pvp in 0.0 stale and boring. When you think about it, it's easy to see why.
taking a system pretty much involves forming up a huge fleet, meaning you sit in a pos staring at your screen for a boring amount of time waiting for all those individuals to finally get to the location so you can actually think about perhaps flying your ship in the desired direction. Then, after many jumps and fail jumps alike you eventually arrive at said system where you have the exciting prospect of sitting for hours again staring at your ship chomping away at ammo whilst endlessly firing at the fearful and formidable sov structures (make sure you scram it, just in case it warps....)
You're in the Northern Coalition. Perhaps you should consider a change of venue. The reason you have to go through the things you mentioned is mostly because [a] The NC has a lot of allied space. You're going to have to travel a lot to fight anyone not from the DRF and [b] huge fleets are the way the NC does business.
Originally by: CelticRanger
But! Wait! what about the enemy fleets coming to defend their home! I hear you say! Well the truth is most of the time they don't show up because they don't have to. They can just wait until your time zone sends you all to sleep and they can bring their huge fleet to come and regain or defend their sov without competition. So the game of sov sea-saw begins until eventually someone gets bored and the other wins the system.
Sovereignty can change within the space of 10 hours (from the time you online the SBUs) if the system you are attacking does not have an iHub or an Outpost.
iHubs and to an even greater extent, Outposts are huge investments. If there were no reinforcement timers, people would be hard-pressed to rationalize spending the time to build and deploy outposts.
Originally by: CelticRanger
On the other hand, there are times when the enemy does defend, I hear you argue! and don't get me wrong the fun factor definitely rockets at that point. That is of course unless you get hit by the new favourite tactic in sov wars in 0.0, which is overload the system and win with lag!
...a standard NC tactic.
Originally by: CelticRanger
What next!
What I might suggest and support would be a hurry-up mode that kicks in when an owner chooses to overtly neglect the system. It would go something like this:
Add a 12-hour window after the first reinforcement. If the iHub or Outpost receives no repair to shields and no damage within 12 hours after coming out of reinforcement, the second reinforcement doesn't happen. Any repair or damage (to the tune of 1 point in either direction) caused within this window makes things progress as they do now. This way, you won't have to spend the same amount of time and effort taking sov from absentee or wholly negligent owners.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |