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) |
MIKI ZUKI
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:28:31 -
[2341] - Quote
if after so may years these is the best you could came with, thse capture the flag bs the thse game is doomed , 2 yearsmax till it goes belly up |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:30:17 -
[2342] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: Possibly because that is what we have today, large swathes of renters and unoccupied space. It would take a particular brand of denial, not to understand that, this is contrary to the entire concept of Sov2.
It takes a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty to jump to the wild conclusion that defense is intended to be impossible in this rebalance. Defence is perfectly feasable if you live in system, however if you wish to hold large areas of space, and intend to defend it by helicoptering in support from elsewhere, far from the attack, within your closed borders? Well then, I guess you are pretty much screwed.
Actually, I could see Prime Time being set to a rolling window across CFC space, so if you want to get some action in EUTZ, you head to tribute and dek. Early US, head to PBF. Late US, Cloud/Outer Ring, into Fountain, with the remainder of Fountain in AU.
Branch gets RUS TZ. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:31:02 -
[2343] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I think that speed buff for T2 was linked to marauders in Bastion mode.
I think you should have to stay in the ships locking range, or on grid so flying out of range should halt the module and enable you to warp. But I don't care either way, though it would placate people a bit if they could not warp.
My main question is if the attacks end does the 10 minutes start again? I hope that is the case.
As was mentioned, you need to maintain target lock.
So hopefully just pulling range while aligned doesn't break the warp disrupting effect instantly. Because that would be pretty broken.
As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1807
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:31:21 -
[2344] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:...Most of the space we already have is near useless and provides nothing for the ordinary line member. After this change it will still be useless space only now it will be even easier to disrupt everyone using our massive numbers. CCP seems intent on change and have demonstrated with this blog that they are neither afraid to shake up the status quo or react strongly to player attempts to deliberately bugger up the new system.
Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:33:24 -
[2345] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as.
Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that. |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:34:16 -
[2346] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1
The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1572
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:35:22 -
[2347] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as. Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that.
They may well however rise to greater prominence, with Sov2 particuarly If they gain short cycle time.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1996
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:35:23 -
[2348] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as. Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that.
Considering you made a point about banning them on your treaty with PL means that they were indeed up to level of creating that conflict.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Rex Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:36:10 -
[2349] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) We freeport it. I can't help but think that creating a deliberate DMZ of unclaimed systems around space that you actually want to own would be an unintended consequence of how this rebalance is currently planned. If anyone comes to take it to stage into your actual space, you just harass them with timers until they give up in frustration. It only takes two minutes a day to reinforce anything, after all.
Offence is the best defence. You dont go sit around station to wait for the trollceptor. You activly troll all surrounding coalitions during primetime. Keep them busy on their hometurf. |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:36:32 -
[2350] - Quote
Too often read here about unoccupied space.
To clarify: The systems that are actually empty are not worth anything which is the reason why they are, were and will be empty.
If the new sov system goes live even the slighly better system that are just good for 3 corpmembers will be empty aswell because there is absolutely no way to be online for 4h each day with 3 members and defend against a 20 fleet.
A system with -0.8 for example is just good for 10 simultanous operating corpmembers.
|
|
Papa Digger
OEG The Gorgon Empire
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:36:55 -
[2351] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) We freeport it, destroy their ratting and mining and just make life hell for them. I know what it mean for PL renters etc. But how it helps for fighting against small alliances who don't build ihubs, and just wait for your leaving and take this space back? :)
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
692
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:37:46 -
[2352] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I think that speed buff for T2 was linked to marauders in Bastion mode.
I think you should have to stay in the ships locking range, or on grid so flying out of range should halt the module and enable you to warp. But I don't care either way, though it would placate people a bit if they could not warp.
My main question is if the attacks end does the 10 minutes start again? I hope that is the case.
As was mentioned, you need to maintain target lock. So hopefully just pulling range while aligned doesn't break the warp disrupting effect instantly. Because that would be pretty broken. As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
I came to the same conclusion about target lock.
I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.
I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:38:21 -
[2353] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Lord TGR wrote:Zappity wrote:Your considered response appears to be to demonstrate how game breaking the sort of behaviour that you are terrified of will be. I seem to remember similar rhetoric about siphons. I hope CCP finds a way to neuter your hissy fit response (assuming it ever happens) and still break up what is truly stultifying null, i.e. the huge coalitions. I'm confident they will. Actually I'm remembering we said the siphons would NOT be the "conflict generators" they're sold as. Turns out they didn't turn into the conflict generators they were sold as. Imagine that. Considering you made a point about banning them on your treaty with PL means that they were indeed up to level of creating that conflict. Oh, I'm sure that was put into the agreement more to keep us from doing that to them, than vice versa. But that agreement's no longer in place, and how much is it used to "generate conflict" now, a year(?) after that agreement was voided? |
Dark Spite
The Real OC ROC.
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:38:46 -
[2354] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Papa Digger wrote:Arrendis wrote: Who's talking about holding it? You don't build an apartment building on your game preserve...
What a point of grief then? You came, take station.. you leave, you lose station. :) We freeport it.
Nulldeal did ask for more npc space. If ccp wont oblige why not have players provide the service. No missions but then again running missions is the slow death of small red crosses.
Also CCP, with this account started in 2009 how can you limit how often I can post. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5910
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:40:25 -
[2355] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up.
Not that it particularly matters after looking at your meager post history involving a whinge about mining nerfs and the ISBoxer nerf, but I notice you never did come back to comment after your dramatic "first" post.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:41:41 -
[2356] - Quote
Just some idle thoughts from a bored and idle mind..
Maybe there is way to limit the ability of large bloks to simply roll over whom ever they choose. Everything to do with sov, taking, losing, reinforcing, or anything else to do with sov all comes down to fleet composition. Simply make it so that the largest single entity is the one who gains benefit from any single engagement.
The bloks work by utilizing allies to cover areas they can't, defend space when they can't (or don't want to). So remove that ability to an extent by adding penalties.
If alliance A wants to take sov they need to do the work to take it, nodes will be on timers. The timers are increased for every member of the offensive fleet who is not a member of the alliance seeking to take the system or constellation. The 1st alliance to shoot the node becomes the dominant alliance (they are vying for sov) for every fleet member who is not in that alliance 10 mins is added to the timers for the capture or reinforce or whatever. You come with a mixed 100 man fleet from different alliances (a coalition), you can still take sov, it is just going to take you a hell of a lot longer to do it
Remove selective sov - Alliance B can't go out and do most of the work then let alliance A finish it to claim sov. If a new group comes to attack nodes or Ihub or whatever once they have been reinforced, the timers reset as if they were the 1st to attack it. Remove "sov transfers" - You want sov, you fight for it ,not pay the landlord to let you put an ihub up
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:45:11 -
[2357] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: I came to the same conclusion about target lock.
I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.
I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.
The worst of the three options, in my opinion, is that the timer does not change, and the defender has to grind it back down himself. This prevents the defender from simply killing the aggressors and going about their business, which is sub optimal in my opinion and just adds more chores.
I strongly suspect that it will reset entirely, since from the flowchart they offered us it seems as though reinforcement and such is contingent on completing cycles of the Entosis links.
The only hazy point is where it states that success activates the structure, but I believe that to be referring to active denial, such as someone turning a TCU on, for instance.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:47:06 -
[2358] - Quote
Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links.
This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30766
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:47:43 -
[2359] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Javajunky wrote:I'm going to say I'm somewhat disappointed, but I shall return to comment after I go throw up. Not that it particularly matters after looking at your meager post history involving a whinge about mining nerfs and the ISBoxer nerf, but I notice you never did come back to comment after your dramatic "first" post. Whether this is intentional or not it's funny either way.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:48:02 -
[2360] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.
Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it.
Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:49:07 -
[2361] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things. Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it. Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone.
Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1808
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:49:58 -
[2362] - Quote
The warp disruption needs to stay on regardless of whether you lose targeting, should stop cloaking and should not be able to be deactivated by overheating. It would be tragic if null was inflicted with anything like FW stabbed and cloaky farmers.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:50:57 -
[2363] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things.
True enough i didn't think of 3rd party in that situation. But it would obviously still be much more effective to apply your own links. Also i made a second edit to that post that moderately alleviates that concern. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:51:22 -
[2364] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage.
In two minutes? I doubt that very much.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:51:45 -
[2365] - Quote
I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30766
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:51:55 -
[2366] - Quote
Zappity wrote:The warp disruption needs to stay on regardless of whether you lose targeting, should stop cloaking and should not be able to be deactivated by overheating. It would be tragic if null was inflicted with anything like FW stabbed and cloaky farmers. No it wouldn't. FW would finally get their ships with bonuses to core stabs
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
203
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:53:50 -
[2367] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: As for the timer, I also would like to know this. Hopefully it either goes back to zero immediately, or at the very least ticks down over time.
+1 The timer should tick back over time at like 50% speed. That way you only need to kill enemy links instead of having to deploy your own. Should allow more freedom in defensive tactics. Edit: With that approach you could just alpha link ships off the field once they activate, effectively forcing a large portion of enemy ships to fit links. This is directly contrary to the goal of forcing OWNERS to defend their own things. Except that they did defend their own things. By killing the guy who tried to contest it. Once the active influence of the attacker is gone, so should the effects be gone. Or they batphoned the landlord - something they're trying to discourage. Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't have been defended. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
692
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:55:52 -
[2368] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Dracvlad wrote: I came to the same conclusion about target lock.
I would agree with you on keeping the warp disruption while the module is running, that would be better, so agree.
I would prefer it going back to 0, but a timer going back to zero over time would work too.
The worst of the three options, in my opinion, is that the timer does not change, and the defender has to grind it back down himself. This prevents the defender from simply killing the aggressors and going about their business, which is sub optimal in my opinion and just adds more chores. I strongly suspect that it will reset entirely, since from the flowchart they offered us it seems as though reinforcement and such is contingent on completing cycles of the Entosis links. The only hazy point is where it states that success activates the structure, but I believe that to be referring to active denial, such as someone turning a TCU on, for instance.
I agree the timer not changing would be the worst option, I would prefer a full re-set but the tick back works too. It would be a pain to make them grind it back to zero as a chore, but in a way that would be a good thing as the defender has to be vulnerable too, though not within a POS shield I hope.
I noticed one box in the flow chart stating that the capture progress is paused if no Entosis links are active, so my base assumption is leaning towards having to use an Entosis link to set it back to 0 so taht would mean the defender setting it back to 0 by doing a win cycle.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:58:16 -
[2369] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I've no issue with accelerated capture for uncontested defenders btw.
Please tell me why, in any way, the attacker's influence should be permitted to linger after the attacker himself is dead.
That'd be like drones that kept on shooting after the parent ship had been destroyed.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
818
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:58:25 -
[2370] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:Regardless of how it happened, someone came and defended the space. It's obviously space which is still defendable, or it wouldn't be defended.
Yes but the point I'm making is this is the ENTIRE reason behind the division of "sides" in the links. To FORCE the OWNERS to take action, to be unable to rely on "blues" for the whole thing.
It also opens interesting tactical possibilities insofar as the attackers can primary a single alliance to try and get a timer to extend by breaking the links. |
|
|
|
|
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 |