Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:15:21 -
[3061] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Besides the complaint that the new system will be open to trolls (which may or may not be adressed) the question still remains where the place of capitals or supers will be in the new meta.
So how about this:
Create a new structure, the Super-Hub. Only one can be set up per constellation.
- increases the effect of indices of selected iHubs in the constellation (owner could chose which to link) - this might or might not include the entosys link multiplier effect for those iHubs - can only be affected by entosys links of CAPITAL ships
ONLY if you want that to be even more of a conflict driver: - also allow to select iHubs to decrease the effect for
P.S. Also, the idea someone brought up of randomly distributing prime time windows over constellation was largely ignored. IMO that's a brilliant idea, since it (randomly) determines the value of a constellation for a lot of alliances - especially generating a different value for people from different timezones.
Why on earth do you actually WANT to shoot structures in anything. Trust me, after the first time in a super shooting structures its really as boring as shooting structures in anything. |
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:22:23 -
[3062] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: No. Look for a WH and then make freighter transport ops.
Done that over 1000 times. So what? Don`t you see the difference betwen dynamics of structure destruction today and after patch? Or you prefer to add some WH spawn intensity?
Dark Spite wrote:Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Didn't know that so stupid things still exist. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:22:26 -
[3063] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Lavayar wrote:Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V. Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Obviously it would also have to be cheaper. Alternatively, the entosys link could only disable an iHub and you'd still have to shoot it, to destroy it. Would obviously mean there has to be an activity mode besides 'online' for iHubs, for this to work, mutually exclusive between all anchored and online iHubs in a system.
Copied from the dev blog:
In this Sovereignty update, the Entosis Link will be used for the following tasks (details later in this blog):
Activating newly deployed Territorial Claim Units and Infrastructure Hubs Reinforcing Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts during their vulnerability period Disabling and Enabling Station Services Capturing Command Nodes during Sovereignty capture events
I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device. |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:25:07 -
[3064] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Didn't know that so stupid things still exist.
It does, just like this guy https://zkillboard.com/character/90037483/ |
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:27:08 -
[3065] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:
I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.
Yes it is. Just look at the example.
Quote: In our example case, let's say Flameburst Coalition manages to catch the majority of the Blackhawk fleet in some bubbles and decimates their force, allowing them to win the first capture event for the RIT station and the capture event for the RIT IHub. The IHub explodes, allowing anyone to place a new replacement hub.
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:28:10 -
[3066] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Lavayar wrote:Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V. Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Obviously it would also have to be cheaper. Alternatively, the entosys link could only disable an iHub and you'd still have to shoot it, to destroy it. Would obviously mean there has to be an activity mode besides 'online' for iHubs, for this to work, mutually exclusive between all anchored and online iHubs in a system. Copied from the dev blog: In this Sovereignty update, the Entosis Link will be used for the following tasks (details later in this blog): Activating newly deployed Territorial Claim Units and Infrastructure Hubs Reinforcing Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts during their vulnerability periodDisabling and Enabling Station Services Capturing Command Nodes during Sovereignty capture events I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.
You have to read further.
The command node capturing is, where TCU and iHUB explode, if the aggressor wins.
EDIT: From the devblog: If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures. |
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:29:14 -
[3067] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Finally caught up with the thread. :)
Hey folks, thanks for the feedback so far
The short version:
"we get that there is a lot of feedback, we also get that even now there's the start of major perception problems, we also get that there's not a lot of precedent for trust, but it's gonna be alright.
We would like everyone to please talk and discuss more, but for the sakes of discussion not getting in the way of plans moving ahead slowly as planned anyway we will be following the recommendations of some Community Management and Customer Interaction studies from last year and splitting up discussion paths while stimulating the development of those paths increasingly towards the detail level, away from thinking about bigger pictures. Just look at these one or two itty bitty little gritty things and focus all your energy on that.
Rest assured we take you seriously, just continue expending energy on theorycrafting and discussions but please follow these trenches so you guys don't look at what the field is shaping up to be cuz that's not what we want to see as our show has to go on. Got to end up soon with a nicely wrapped low maintenance product venture for the big boys after all. Grand plans got to be grand, but at least they've realised it comes at a price."
Don't get me wrong, in spite of the above I actually do *get* the objectives set, but I also understand the conditions required for them, and the room and resources you've got to come up with a working system within the guidelines of product development.
Let me just point out that within closed systems any top down design / development approach only ever results in internal dynamics finding and reinforcing status quo. If you want something else, it'll have to be rooted in behavioural bottom up developments - which is not compatible with mechanical design focus required to end up meeting the goals set by venture development.
The irony is that top down systems like this won't meet those goals by default, because in spite of innate extensibility and an initial period of adaptation (which is different from shake up) you will see that the behavioural aspects of group dynamics have not been changed (logically, since that's a bottom up dynamic, not top down) so after a little while you end up playing (again) for time till the next system ends up in a status quo post ante (as it's called). Leaving you to throw away all the work having to once again come up with a new system, since nothing you can come up with under top down constraints can truly address rooted behavioural triggers.
I appreciate the efforts, and I understand the challanges, but you base too much in data analyses innately vulnerable to confirmation bias, you don't take the role of CCP as part of the dynamic as inclusive to r&d requirements, and while they are unstandable there are things in product development which are simply incompatible with venture development as long as the conviction reigns that every part and the product as a whole can be wrapped up efficiently and passed on with shiny flags of low maintenance, advanced content development tools, built-in and highly flexible extensibility, and so forth.
If you look carefully, you can already see several sets of perception problems taking shape. Such problems aren't challenges, since there never is any solution to them but replacing the entirety of affected customers in a given feature or playstyle niche, and even then there's the issue of eve's stories lingering on in having a life of their own. They still create perception trends that dwarf every marketing effort of the pas decade. You can only prevent perception problems happening in the first place, and let's be honest, CCP does not have a grand track record in this. That's not a stab at people who do the real work, they tend to figure these things out, but this is one of those things where there has always been a grand canyon of a divide between that lot in the rooms upstairs beyond the cantina and the real world. EVE the game is a result of hard work, the venture - heck even the board agreed with that last year - has had a disproportional amount of luck in surviving a consistant strain of bad decisions having consequences for product level development. Each and every time rooted in avoidable perception problems.
You who do actual work have done a lot of hard work, but it is visible in these two devblogs that it rests on a focus which sets guided objectives within constraints. Understandable, but that doesn't make it the better approach - in truth it's an approach which never serves the venture as expected, wished, or envisioned to.
But I get it, once people figure it out - just like the last bunch of times - it ends up with that ancient question of "what to do about it" and that recent sense of "so if we do X what will that mean for me here", but that's an entirely different debate. In all these years though I've yet to see meaningful advocacy against the grand canyon upstairs. Just like people are getting smarter in managing customers, so they are getting wiser at guiding their own teams. It's about getting down in the detail level.
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:31:07 -
[3068] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:Dark Spite wrote:
I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.
Yes it is. Just look at the example. Quote: In our example case, let's say Flameburst Coalition manages to catch the majority of the Blackhawk fleet in some bubbles and decimates their force, allowing them to win the first capture event for the RIT station and the capture event for the RIT IHub. The IHub explodes, allowing anyone to place a new replacement hub.
Great, less structure shooting, didnt remember that part of the blog. But this only means entosis link in this context replaces SBU's as a method of reinforcing. After reinforcing the groups still have to fight and remain active in order to make the i-hub/TCU's blow up. With all effects on the explosion should be as pretty as always. |
Blackfangg
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:33:35 -
[3069] - Quote
So I'm writing this because I feel as if the people posting about how this is horrible didn't read the actual post. I'm led to assume this because a lot of the Negatives they gave are not right/based on fact.
Lets cover the common complaints: #1 The TimeZone issue: While it is true that AU and EU with have a harder time accomplishing the INITIAL attack, the period after reinforcement will still let Off-TZ players/corps/alliances help their friends/fight for their space, especially in max-system index space. This is due to the fact that the command nodes spawn directly after reinforcement ends, but only spawns 5 nodes (Ten are needed to win) Now if your system is lived-in and has max index then it will take 40mins for one timer. After each node is captured another will spawn somewhere else, this means that even if an Alliance could somehow have people waiting in the exact locations the nodes would spawn (which is impossible) it would still take 1 hour and 20mins to win the event. Considering for a moment that this isnt possible though allows us to use a more rational example of how it will play out.
Your alliance has a 2:00-6:00 GMT Primetime (So AU players). An enemy reinforces your Ihub and TCU. Your reinforcement ends at 5:00 GMT, meaning your guys in EU (+0-+2 GMT) probably wont be able to help out right away. Fighting at the nodes begins and you lose the first node after a large fight (The other nodes have small fights raging one, therefore no progress has been made on them) This will take at least 40 mins AFTER your fleet has lost the fight (Two ELinks cant be used at the same time, therefore the control slider doesn't move) So the first big fight ends and they capture the first node at 5:45 GMT (right before the end of your TZ) Since the fight hasn't been determined it continues after your TZ till someone wins. Now things happen more quickly.
Your node capture time - 10mins / Enemy capture time - 40mins (due to index levels) First node (5:45) Enemy - 1 You - 0 Second node (6:35) Enemy - 2 You - 0 Third node (7:40) Enemy - 3 You- 0 Fourth node (8:00) Enemy -4 You - 0 Fifth node (8:45) Enemy - 5 You - 0 Sixth Node (8:45) Enemy - 5 You - 1 (You managed to win a battle with a smaller force away from the main fleet.) Seventh Node (9:45) Enemy - 5 You - 2 (Again, you chose to fight away from the main fleet surrendering one to capture one) Eighth Node (10:10) Enemy - 6 You - 1 (Its at this point that your corp is getting to the end of its TZ and players are logging off) Ninth Node (11:00) Enemy - 7 You - 2 (It looks like you might lose this system, your running out of players!) Tenth Node (12:00) Enemy 7 You - 3 (YAY! Your EU brethren have logged in and come to save the day)
Ofcourse this is highly theoretical and infact you coud lose your sov in a mere 2 hours or so without fighting, or by losing too much. But remember, if they send a large fleet to start capping a node, then just leave, it will take them 40mins for that one while your medium sized fleet rushes around fighting the little guerrilla fleets, takeing the nodes in 10mins each. If you both have equal fleets (1000) but u split 250 to 4 different nodes while thier 1000 captures one, you'll win in minutes! My belief is that fights wil go on for mulitple days sometimes(As they have in the past), thereby allowing cross TZ play.
#2: No Benefits to Sov: There are so many more ISK opportunity's in Null than in High, I guess I don't understand why this is a thing. I personally made A LOT more by ratting/mining in Null than I ever made from L4s in HighSec. Also your in a MUCH safer place if you have friends to call in to back you up against some cloaky ratter killer. Ive died more in High Sec than Null (While making ISK) so the Risk vs Reward is amazingly onesided towards Reward. In my experience I've lost one ratting Tengu for every 4-6Bil I make. Maybe im just not seeing what they mean, If your index is high then there are plenty of Sites/Belts/Anoms for everyone, that to me is a benefit. Also having moons is pretty dope, as well as JBs, and abilities to restrict docking rights.
#3 Punks in Intys etc that try to ninja and just **** you off: Really? Again, did you read it? "Requires a target lock on the structure." This means that an Inty will have to remain within 127km (Maximum Targeting Range of a Crow with 3x Sebos, 3x SigAmps, 1 MWD/AB, Targetting Rigs) So if I ever saw one I'd laugh and Undock my InstaNado and bye bye Inty. I can get a Harpy to 231km with the same fit, but its pointless, you wouldnt be able to keep that link up for very long once the "Someones captureing "blahblah") ping goes out. 40mins in a lived in system? forget about it. So primarily your 250km ELinkers would all be Cruiser or larger, and slow enough to be caught by an inty, tackled/webbed, and killed. Rememeber the T2 ones cost 80mil, thats more than most T1 Cruisers, so I doubt people will just be throwing them away like that. BUT this is EVE so i guess you should expect it a few times.
#4 Ships with Utility Highs always will be preferred: Your whole fleet doesnt need to bring Elinks already fitted, Just have people carry them in their cargo bays and have a fleet member drop a mobile depot if they need to switch them out. Since one on either side being activated cancels the other out, only one person would realistically need a Link (and he would just be a crazy tanked faction BS or something) and then use the mobile depot for another one if he dies.
#5 This makes Sov too hard to hold: How? Your capture time = x2 to x4 less than your attacker if you actually use the system your in, and if you don't you don't deserve it. Therefore if they are not SUPER organized (Which is extremely hard for a lot of big alliances even) then you can cap 2-3 for thier one
Not sure how this will all work out, but atleast ccp are trying something new. Maybe im wrong about all this!
BlackFangg |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
796
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:39:38 -
[3070] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote: It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive.
And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.
But if you try to keep that commitment for too long in a spread and non focused way you LOOSE that cohesion. That is not MY prediction, that is known for centuries from generals experience on keeping an army cohesion for long engagements. That have been later re discovered by managers at most companies around the world. Its human nature. If you keep the decentralized into non focused tasks for too long you LOSE the capability of focusing when you need it. So if CFC TRIES to do that .. in haklf a year they will lose a LOT of their power. But your leadership is nto dumb enough to do that.
I've made a couple of runs at writing a reply, but ultimately, people who haven't seen or experienced how we operate, wont get it no matter how I explain. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as from the inside, I see it an entirely possible (and desirable) event.
(I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
|
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:42:14 -
[3071] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I've made a couple of runs at writing a reply, but ultimately, people who haven't seen or experienced how we operate, wont get it no matter how I explain. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as from the inside, I see it an entirely possible (and desirable) event.
(I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
I dont doubt you can pull of the reinforcement phase for a long time, but getting CFC to respond to all timers created everywhere will be tricky. Even for you. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
702
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:52:02 -
[3072] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I've made a couple of runs at writing a reply, but ultimately, people who haven't seen or experienced how we operate, wont get it no matter how I explain. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as from the inside, I see it an entirely possible (and desirable) event.
(I am just picturing the entire Verite sov-map going black, as it someone turned off the lights. That thought alone should worry people).
I dont doubt you can pull of the reinforcement phase for a long time, but getting CFC to respond to all timers created everywhere will be tricky. Even for you.
In fact all he proves with that comment is that people who do not live in the space do not deserve to own it, does not worry me at all, in fact I welcome it, because afterwards is when the fun starts..., in other words when people move into systems that they want to hold, and I am still wondering just how easy they will find it when they find the TCU sitting next to a death star POS well away from their cap fleets. Yes they could do it, with a big enough subcap fleet to deal with a large POS, its not difficult, but that is a lot more effort then Trollceptors.
As for peoples IHUB's the ones that really matter will be defended so his interceptor concept will just die.
But CFC please do this so I don't have to bother reinforcing the system I want
Ella's Snack bar
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
6128
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:12:37 -
[3073] - Quote
Just make the Entosis Link a Command Link with all associated restrictions.
No more trollceptors. Got to use T3s for that.
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:16:37 -
[3074] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Just make the Entosis Link a Command Link with all associated restrictions.
No more trollceptors. Got to use T3s for that. I think battleship is fine candidate for this purpose. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
830
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:16:46 -
[3075] - Quote
Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3986
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:19:26 -
[3076] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:25:40 -
[3077] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? I'm not scared. It's just question of risk/reward. Where on one hand 750 kk for iHub and on the other 20kk for interceptor. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
834
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:30:33 -
[3078] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? I'm not scared. It's just question of risk/reward. Where on one hand 750 kk for iHub and on the other 20 kk for interceptor.
The T2 inty costs 100m.
It can be stopped by a simple punisher with a T1 link.
Do you think having an 80m mod on a ship with <2k EHP which CANNOT WARP OFF isn't a risk?
Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of?
These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space.
Edit: Make the mod have a 100% drop rate on death. People will be falling over themselves to hunt these. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
181
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:39:17 -
[3079] - Quote
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:... paplink requirements
Never. Ever. Again.
Everytime someone says the word paplink out loud I break whatever I'm holding.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1600
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:40:29 -
[3080] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote: Timers and counters are the only way to do it and it has to be accessible to everyone or we are back to the problem we're in now.
And like I said above. Setting the bar at 2 minutes of time and a 100 million isk module is setting the bar to o low. Its two minutes to start to RF the structure. Theres another 10-30 minutes for the defender to respond. pretty much everyone understands this, and besides, this is only the odd few, who still haven't grasped the essentials. They will just have to catch up later.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:47:02 -
[3081] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
277
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:50:39 -
[3082] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. That's where you just use a defensive link on ANY other ship at zero - preferably one with a nice web bonus - then place bets on how many 100m killmails each one of you can get :) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
837
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:51:28 -
[3083] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late.
That's a more valid concern.
Perhaps a color option for the overview? Or an icon a-la scram/webs/ewar? |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:53:10 -
[3084] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late.
So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so? |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1600
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:54:37 -
[3085] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. That's where you just use a defensive link on ANY other ship at zero - preferably one with a nice web bonus - then place bets on how many 100m killmails each one of you can get :) Nice to see, how imaginative people are becoming in dealing with the pre reinforcement stage, in reality, for occupied systems, they will be tested and passed over, in most circumstances in the search for empty, easy systems.
If they are occupied, then if someone wants to conquer you, interceptors, are not going to be the tool of choice, a larger force will burst through or cyno past the gatecamps, and bring full scale warfare down upon your head.
Interceptors? Nothing but scouts with the ability to start the process of robbing systems from the lazy and absent.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:05:33 -
[3086] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Seven Koskanaiken wrote:... paplink requirements Never. Ever. Again. Everytime someone says the word paplink out loud I break whatever I'm holding.
This. Being in those fleets and the constant questions about paplink always made me think of the seagulls from Finding Nemo. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
838
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:06:53 -
[3087] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late. So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so, in which case you'll stay docked? On second thought, make that a support fleet anywhere in range and a single additional pilot in local, to keep the point till his friends arrive.
See, we're already moving away from myth of the unkillable trollceptor to a proper fleet engagement.
Shouldn't have been this hard, but we got there.
Could it be that they were, in fact, aiming for exactly this? To make it possible to take undefended sov without a [super]cap grind, to ensure that uncontested/undefended areas fall quickly, but defended areas are much harder to dislodge without making a proper effort?
It's almost as if the advantages are stacked to the attackers if the space is unused and undefended but stacked with the defenders if it is. Some tweaks required, but they're damned sure in the right ballpark. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:07:24 -
[3088] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Interceptors? Nothing but scouts with the ability to start the process of robbing systems from the lazy and absent.
Define "lazy and absent". Right now you need to bring a unbeatable fleet and commit it for a period of time to shoot structures.
With the new system, you only need the THREAT of an unbeatable fleet and commit a couple of ships that tap those same structures.
Seems a pretty onesided issue, IMO.
Of course the interceptor fleet is worthless without a sizeable backup fleet, which may just explain why the CFC is not too worried about said change. It's actually pretty generous of them to point out the flaws. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1602
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:10:18 -
[3089] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Interceptors? Nothing but scouts with the ability to start the process of robbing systems from the lazy and absent.
Define "lazy and absent". Right now you need to bring a unbeatable fleet and commit it for a period of time to shoot structures. With the new system, you only need the THREAT of an unbeatable fleet and commit a couple of ships that tap those same structures. Seems a pretty onesided issue, IMO. Of course the interceptor fleet is worthless without a sizeable backup fleet, which may just explain why the CFC is not too worried about said change. It's actually pretty generous of them to point out the flaws.
You may very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment. However the possibility of the loss of rental empires, and large areas of lightly or unoccupied space, could also have had some consideration in the article.
Who knows?
Nothing like handing out pitchforks and burning brands to the mob, to get your own way?
But an old, tactic, CCP are a lot smarter now, surely they wouldn't waste their time with such jaded and discredited methods, so you may be right, generous. Right......
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:14:58 -
[3090] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so, in which case you'll stay docked?
On second thought, make that a support fleet anywhere in range and a single additional pilot in local, to keep the point till his friends arrive.
In EvE it's more a matter of good manners to suppose a trap and outsmart your enemy.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |