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) |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
873
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:05:35 -
[661] - Quote
owned you in pos sov owned you in dominion sov will own you in occupancy sov
still havent felt the touch of a woman
Follow me on twitter
|
Canaith Lydian
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:05:42 -
[662] - Quote
It's brilliant on many levels. I'm looking forward a system that uses everything Eve and integrates in into SOV. Miners, ratters, PVP'ers, and everyone in an alliance matters, and there are benefits for embracing more of the game. Everyone is more important. Awesome. Can't wait to see it work. |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
894
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:05:55 -
[663] - Quote
No structure shooting. Ammo futures just took a dump
|
Infrequent
Vanilla.
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:10:53 -
[664] - Quote
All of these null anom bear tears, my god this is a gold mine. Can't wait for these changes, if you're threatening to leave null or infact Eve in general because CCP are actually making educated decisions on Eve's most prominent issue, good because the game really does not need people like you.
Keep it up CCP, once things get ironed out, tweaks made, numbers crunched, we'll have us a fantastic set of changes coming to null that'll finally work to get it out of it's sorry state. |
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:10:54 -
[665] - Quote
Good changes overall.
Cheer CCP. |
Searbhreathach
Sock Robbers Inc. Low-Class
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:13:19 -
[666] - Quote
everyone please calm down, this dev blog is clearly just an early april fools joke right? RIGHT? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
663
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:15:20 -
[667] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I keep hearing how bad nullsec is, then a Nulli guys says its so bad he rents it out to people who pay them vast rent and presumbaly make ISK out of it, otherwise they would not be there. The contradictions are huge, why would they rent space if they could not make ISK out of it. If you were interested in the truth, the answer would have been obvious to you: Because it makes more sense to rent it to some poor sucker with lower standards and use your own time to go do something either more fun (pvp) OR more lucrative pve things of which their are many.
No, its because they do multiple things with their space, for example we ice mined, we did anomalies, we were planning to build certain things that you need sov space for, some guys were mining anomalies that needed to be scanned down, alll the sorts of things you can do as a team, and we had fun in space that we called our own, blowing up people who thought we were uselss renters was the most fun and we fought incredible odds to keep it.
I can safely say that the time I was in Querious as Pirate nation renting 4 terrible systems was the best time I had in game and I left that space far richer then when I entered it.
That was Eve to me and this system really may give me what I want, a system where you can fight and hold, ISK per hour mania can go run screaming for all I care.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:15:47 -
[668] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:I love every one of those 7000+ words.
Ram it home.
and watch the CFC bite the pillow |
Flo Skyler
Indy Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:16:38 -
[669] - Quote
I am all for changing sov mechanics, but im not sure if this is a good way of doing it.
Sov holders will have to defend their space from any pvp entity looking for a "gud fight", even if said entity have no interest whatsoever in actually holding sov. This is great for ppl who wants to pvp, they can go out and pick a fight and after they have seen what is arrayed against them, decide whether or not to engage and even pick the fights in their favor to some degree since their main objective is the fight, not getting sov. This could become a real strain on sov holders, constantly having to defend their territory against pilots with no real interest in holding sov. I fail to see what advantages there are to holding sov that can make up for having to form up every day for defensive timers or to prevent said timers from happening in the first place.
CCP want more players in null sec. I fail to see how these sov changes will improve that. In fact i think it will have quite the opposite effect. When you make it easier to take sov you also make it harder for sov holders to create the kind of stable environment needed for carebears to live in. Yes it will be easier for smaller entities to get a foothold in null, but it will be just as easy for them to loose that again and tbh i dont think the reward for holding sov is big enough for ppl to invest their time and assets into holding sov when they can loose it again on a whim.
My guess is, that the big coalitions will not be able to hold on to as much sov as they currently do. I think they will focus on some core regions and maybe we will see a more segregated sov map where alliances are more focused in a single region rather than multiple like we see today. I fear that the best sov will be held by the coalitions and the rest will become a barren wasteland where sov changes hands on a daily basis or not at all and chaos rules.
To sum up. Changes are great for pvp (or at least the offensive side). Not so great for the ppl that actually holds sov and try to make a living there. |
Event Handler
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:16:39 -
[670] - Quote
ok.. This is an Event I cant Handle...
This is an early april fools joke right?
Did blizzard pay you guys to make this WoW in space? |
|
svingor
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:18:26 -
[671] - Quote
that primetimer is crap it forces alliances to focus on one TZ.... and whatabout ceptors orbiting with the E-link, YEAH RIGHT.. |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:18:39 -
[672] - Quote
After a few hours of reading, talking and thinking about it I'm still amazed after months of work this is what you came up with.
1. this system won't shake up the current coalition cluster, it'll only lead to mergers to keep the number of entities lower 2. you go from million HP sov structures to 1x frig being able to reinforce a system with a 20m mod 3. a global game across all TZs gets enslaved by the TZ setting of the defender 4. 250km range on the entosis mod, srsly 5. supercapitals are worthless now 6. Risk vs. reward - why should people commit to 0.0 7. freeport mode - happy station games and constant bubbles
Let's talk a bit about the positive things a bit.
1. no sbus anymore - good riddance 2. nodes to split up fleets, good idea - but tweak the numbers down, 10x per each node is too much 3. focus on constellations 4. defensive boni (but give it to all RF modes, not just the first cycle)
Now let's try to fix this mess. First of all, you can't be serious about the Entosis mod. Nobody should be able to reinforce a system on his own and especially not in a frig with a 20m mod. Cut down the range of the mod to 20km/25km for t1/t2. This keeps people on the sov structure, make it only useable on large+ hulls. The supercapital / capital issue is still unsolved and I'm not sure how you can make supers viable with this system. But you could tweak fatigue - maybe change fatigue this way - you don't get any fatigue within the same region, only if you jump into another region. That makes carriers and dreads more useful in a regional conflict. ADD NPC SPACE to EACH region. Make every region vulnerable, you do all that fancy lore stuff but nothing about this has a meaningful effect. Let incursions take over stations that aren't used, create NPC space where people don't use it, give pilots the ability to get close to the heart of the enemy. Create decent staging options, put stress on large entities so that regional powers can grow, not superpowers.
Now a more general comment - how is this system supposed to break up the status quo of eve? CFC and N3 are still going to reign over most regions, probably cutting down a bit on the edges to keep the pressure down, but it's not going to be that bad. Probably worse for PL and N3, now that their entire supercapital and capital fleet are rendered useless. Why haven't you tried to create a system that encourages to field medium sized alliances that can fight regional conflicts? The risk vs. rewards of 0.0 are even worse now, we're going to see more cloaky campers, stations with assets are even more vulnerable with the freeport mode, now that the enemy can just jump in a JF with dictors. Well done. You had the approval of most players to change something big about 0.0, shake things up. CHANGE STUFF BIG TIME. All you came up with is a mod like a TP that claims sov. Way to go. A space that has been designed to build and support large fleets of capital and supercapital ships, now in the hands of ceptors with a spray can. How could you not see the limitations and weaknesses of this system? |
Suitonia
Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep
464
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:19:47 -
[673] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:You mentioned that the Entosis link will have low fitting requirements, and not disable propulsion while active.
What is there to prevent massive hordes of T2 entosis fitted interceptors from completely swarming an area and putting entosis links on everything?
All the ceptor has to do is stay within a 250km bubble of the objective, and even if hostiles show up, you just have to MWD around for 2 minutes. If the enemy is trying to entosis your objective, do the same.
What's to stop a large group from putting 1000 nerds in interceptors, and just burn through 100 systems in 1-2 hours? You've made sov easier to take, but that works both ways.
Any small group that slights a big group can expect all their space reinforced in less than 30 minutes. By interceptors.
So the future of Sov warfare is inteceptor with sov lasers, slippery petes to kill interceptors, and absolutely no fleet on fleet fighting.
It's ok you have CowWarrior
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:15 -
[674] - Quote
Are there any changes to non-hostile sov transfers (ether between corps in the same alliance or between two alliances via a transfer corp)?
Is it still gonna be possible? |
Lquid Drisseg
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:24 -
[675] - Quote
I am optimistic about the future of SOV and happy that CCP had the brains to release this with enough time to actually incorporate player feedback time + design review time + extra development time.
- Does it need tweaks? Yes
- Is this the end of the SOV roadmap? No
- Can we deal with these changes+feedback for now so CCP can get some good data and improve it further? Yes
Please take your time and get this right CCP, I don't want a whole new cluster to explore next year that's based on a crap SOV system. Take your time and do it right. This one is worth your time. |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:28 -
[676] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Nyan Lafisques wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Tia Aves wrote:If anyone wants a more balanced and thought out view as opposed to all of the mindless whining I highly suggest the thread on the EVE sub-Reddit. /r/EVE is an anti-CFC circlejerk, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure everyone there supports these changes out of spite. Grrr goons. People there enjoy the changes not because of goons, but because they believe these changes are good. People are entirely free to hold beliefs that are wrong.
tis the bed you make, now sleep in it :D |
Czan Olmzi
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:20:54 -
[677] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote:Alliances need to be able to set 'prime-time' on a per structure basis so that groups spread across multiple timezones can be given content, at the very least you can have your different TZs defending different borders.
Other than that looks good to me.
Yes. If the prime-time window could be set differently for each system or structure, rather than one time across the whole alliance then alliances with multiple TZs would naturally set primes-times, proportionally, according to the number of members they have in each TZ, not only to provide content for each TZ but to eliminate the need to protect ALL its space during one prime-time. Is this not a very obvious solution? I can't claim to be an authority on the current system but for the proposed changes this would seem to make sense. Am I missing something? |
jita Pirkibo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:21:46 -
[678] - Quote
Guess i'll have to stay in jita now this **** is going to happen,... Bye Bye mixed-TZ allainces of any relevance in 0.0 (sov-nullsec) |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:22:25 -
[679] - Quote
Nb4 Record Breaking posts - RIP Phoebe Thread
Oh and - just say no to giving Entosis Link (attackers) free headstarts!
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:23:34 -
[680] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Nb4 Record Breaking posts - RIP Phoebe Thread
Oh and - just say no to giving Entosis Link (attackers) free headstarts!
This thread has already passed all the other stickies in reply count and it's only been a couple hours. This should be a fun ride. |
|
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
111
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:23:51 -
[681] - Quote
Quote:I'm still amazed after months of work this is what you came up with. This sums it up pretty good, i think.
*slow claps* |
omgdutch2005
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:24:05 -
[682] - Quote
WTF is this? Guess next up is shiney cartoon graphics and we call it WoW - Space online?
I'd rather shoot structures then to have this kind of atrocity.... |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:24:18 -
[683] - Quote
Querns wrote:Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy? TCUs and IHUBs are blown to smithereens once an attacker successfully contests their sov game. This is especially important for IHUBs, which are freighter sized.
oh man think of all the fraighter kills, i cant wait :D |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:29:00 -
[684] - Quote
This is a very bad idea since it forces alliances to focus to a single TZ. And the entosis link is OP, since like a ceptor can fly around ihub's at ludicrous per sec and take the ihub. Entosis should be forced into siege mode as it go active in it's task. |
Michael Ignis Archangel
Caveat Emptor Technologies LP Liberti Fidelis
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:29:28 -
[685] - Quote
Possible addition to the TZ vulnerability window: base this also off of the indices.
A newly captured sovereign system would have a window of say, 8 hours. A 5/5/5 indexed system would be vulnerable only 3 hours/day. If the system sits unused for some period of time, allow the vulnerability window to degrade expansively out from the alliance-selected prime time until it's 23.5/7.
All numbers are suggestions, there was no particular logic behind the initial 8, or the optimal 3.
This would increase the defender's advantage and their incentive to use the space. It would also allow a simpler steamroll of truly unused space. |
Mira Lemuria
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:29:29 -
[686] - Quote
horrible!!
mkae it like a siege high-sec item... it should not be easy to do it w an inty... |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:30:01 -
[687] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Agent Known wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:REALLY IMPORTANT:
Entosis Link should trigger alert IMMEDIATELY - not after a 10 Minute delay when the damage is already done!!!!
*(Please like this post so Dev's will clearly see this) If you're actively using the system they're contesting then intel channels would tell you well before they got to the structures anyway. Intel channels don't tell you someone's fit or cargo. No where in all of EVE's mechanics does an attacker of a POS or POCO or ANY player owned structure get a free 10 minute head start in contesting anything in this game.... @#$@ THAT! That's **** game design right there --- I'm all for what's proposed EXCEPT that!
You haven't read the part with the E-link thoroughly enough, it explicitly states:
Quote:Entosis Links have a significant cycle time (5 minutes for the Tech One variant, 2 minutes for Tech Two) and do not start affecting the battle for control of the target structure until the end of their first cycle.
and
Quote: Once the first cycle of the Entosis Link completes and the capture progress begins the Alliance who owns the structure will be notified of the attack and will need to respond in order to prevent the attackers from reinforcing the structure.
Therefore, your point is moot, you immediately get a warning, once a capture-attempt is starting to count down. |
Escuro
Disassembly workshop Out of Sight.
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:30:32 -
[688] - Quote
Regarding the not-so awesome prime time limitation.
How bout using some Stronth and auto-reinforcing it for a MAXIMUM of, for example, 16 hours per eve-day. Alliances can select a smaller reinforce time to save ISK and abandoned systems with no stronth will be availiable 23/7. Also, you can use none if you're greedy as hell.
EDIT: Also, there can be a constellation blockade mechanic invented in this. After the SOV update most alliances in eve will shrink anyway. |
Evil BeeHatch
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:31:35 -
[689] - Quote
Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode. |
Des Jardin
Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:32:35 -
[690] - Quote
I am not in favor of the "prime time" as it would tend to decrease available content.
Suggestion:
Introduce a mechanic where the attacking fleet can alter the prime time window.
"Good against remotes is one thing.-á Good against the living ... that's something else."
|
|
|
|
|
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 |