|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12055
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:29:22 -
[1] - Quote
Quote:As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.
This will not happen if frigates are allowed to use it.
Quote:The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.
Then make it disable prop mods as well, so people can't ***** out and kite their way through a sov capture.
If their intent to attack the sov in a given system is genuine and not just trolling, then they'll have no problem fighting for control of the grid, instead of kiting until the other guy dies of boredom.
One or both of those things should be implemented, if you are actually serious about making it matter who has control of the grid. Otherwise it will be a trolling contest.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12058
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:24 -
[2] - Quote
Jaro Essa wrote: You won't have to kill the interceptor. With your own entosis link active on the structure or command node, no progress can be made towards the timer.
Which, I would point out, is not promoting conflict. It's fighting kiting with boredom. You're just sitting there on the button, while he's sitting there a hundred kilometers away from the button, waiting until one of you gives up.
Great mechanic, bro. Such conflict, much meaningful.
Quote: Though, if you can't kill one interceptor, why should you have sov?
Why should a solo interceptor be the deciding factor for control of an entire system? Or any factor at all?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12058
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:43:20 -
[3] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote: What's stopping you from killing said interceptor.
I was answering the claim of the guy who said you didn't have to.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12058
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:44:45 -
[4] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:The nature of entosis links is going to push alliances into very rigid doctrines that won't change except in the case of rebalancing. People will get bored of this very quickly.
Yep. Interceptors, and whatever counter they can devise against interceptors. Probably more interceptors.
Hey, isn't that the exact same problem people have with capitals? That their only counter is themselves?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12061
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:01:11 -
[5] - Quote
rsantos wrote: You see... if the problem is that if an interceptor is enough to make you quit and give up your sov maybe you shouldn't own it.
And more strawman arguments.
Isn't the whole point of this change to go against the "weaponized boredom" paradigm? Or is totally okay with you to have a four hour tax on your gameplay for something arbitrary? Please, let me know what you do in the game, we can just have you do something different, on the same grid, for four hours per day.
I'm sure you'll be okay with that, since you're okay with putting it on somebody else.
Quote: Yes with this new sov mechanic the major blocks will have a hard time keeping all their sovs holding... but thats exactly the point of the change.
That's so much not the point, for what I said or for this rebalance, that I find it hard to believe you're sincere.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12063
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:09:36 -
[6] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:Capqu wrote:Tora Bushido wrote:Capqu wrote:remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods. thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship Yes, they should or null-sec will become even more boring without fresh blood. I hope high-sec carebears don't make you worry to much to care
This is a massive derailment, but for a while now I have believed that bubble immunity should not be a native hull ability.
It should instead be the ability to fit an interdiction nullifier module. Like a warp stab, but not.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12063
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:12:48 -
[7] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote: I'm not opposed to a larger force having some advantage. What I'm opposed to is infecting sov war with the space AIDS that is an ECM frig blob. The only thing worse than grinding millions of structure HP is spending an entire fight permajammed.
Yeah, I'm afraid that's TS.
Ewar is one of the few force multipliers available in EVE Online that lets new players leverage the only advantage they have over older groups of players.
Numbers.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12066
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:16:05 -
[8] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space.
I'm curious what the problem is with that.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12066
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:22:21 -
[9] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space.
I'm curious what the problem is with that. Fozziebear wrote:Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
None of those things stop being true, whether CCP takes the necessary step to restrict frigates from using these modules or not.
Try again.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12066
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:24:52 -
[10] - Quote
To all of the cheerleaders.
In a juxtaposition of your most frequently parroted remark, I submit this.
If you can't bust a gatecamp in anything but the ludicrously overpowered interceptor hulls, what makes you think you deserve sov in the first place?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12070
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 14:29:03 -
[11] - Quote
afkalt wrote: So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players?
One is where you choose to be, one is where a poor mechanic forces you to be. You might not, but I still do value player choice and player freedom.
The people who value orbiting a button in a disposable frigate are already in faction warfare.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12092
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:08:07 -
[12] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree.
Ha ha, what? You're actually straight up admitting that you only want something that does not have counters. You know, by rejecting anything that would, and I ******* quote your very sentence, "have multiple counter tactics".
So unless it's absurdly overpowered with no reasonable way for a defender to deal with it, you don't want it.
Thanks for that, you just screwed your whole side in this argument.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12092
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:10:40 -
[13] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree.
Ha ha, what? You're actually straight up admitting that you only want something that does not have counters. You know, by rejecting anything that would, and I ******* quote your very sentence, "have multiple counter tactics". So unless it's absurdly overpowered with no reasonable way for a defender to deal with it, you don't want it. Thanks for that, you just screwed your whole side in this argument. Sorry, grammar error, I'll fix that for you.
Sure. I believe the heck out of that. I believe it so hard, Bill Clinton really didn't have sex with that woman.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12092
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: edit: Fixed, please reabsorb, it was a convoluted sentence structure and I screwed up a double negative ^^
Yeah, see, that doesn't change the underlying message.
You're arguing to get something overpowered, and outright stating that getting something not overpowered isn't acceptable.
That says way more about your side in the argument than you realize.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12095
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Alp Khan wrote:a) Evade any gate camp with sub 2.0s align time b) Evade any bubble c) Easy to train for and easy to acquire, extremely low cost d) Can be easily acquired in massive quantities and can be sent to troll entire regions in very little time d) Can disengage safely from almost all possible types of on-grid encounters through overwhelming speed, even during entosis module phase
And people are pushing for a hull like this to be able to contest sovereignty?
As General McAullife once said, "Nuts!"
e) can easily be countered by one person in a frigate that can be flown from day 1. Doesn't even need frigate V.
If by "countered" you mean "both sit on the button until one guy gets bored".
Fozzie's very first objective, broken.
Frigates must not have access to this module.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12096
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 00:34:12 -
[16] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: That being said, I'm left wondering what role CCP has for capitals in the future...
Dreadnaughts chief among them.
If the ship's niche was "shoot structures" and now structure shooting it largely abrogated... don't they need a new niche?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12098
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 03:48:52 -
[17] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt
Because they don't want to have "military superiority on grid".
That's the origination of all of their arguments.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12098
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 05:02:34 -
[18] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:baltec1 wrote:People seem to be making the same wrong assumption over and over in this thread. When we say trollcepters can disengage at will we do not mean they warp off. And in other news today, fast ships can in fact disengage from fights in eve online. This has come as a shock and surprise to many veteran sov fighters across the cluster. Notable cfc Megathron enthusiast Baltec had this to say: "Oh, so that's why they've been fitting prop mods to their cynabals!"GǪ This has been a presentation of Part of our Cluster, Tonight. Goodnight!
Sarcasm aside, please explain why you think people should be able to kite their way into sov instead of actually fighting for it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12098
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 05:19:56 -
[19] - Quote
Alexander McKeon wrote:Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? You're getting stuck on one point and lost sight of the proverbial forest. I understand the goal of making unused space easy to take from absentee landlords, but if the defender wishes to truly hold their space, every system would need the kind of around the clock population as say, BUZ or GE- to consistently prevent reinforcement timers from being initiated.
Not only is that simply impossible for anything resembling even a regional power, current nullsec income can't support it. I know an income rebalance is in the works, but asking people to defend their space under the new system without giving them reason to do so is flawed. As it stands, it is far too easy to reinforce a large area of moderately occupied space repeatedly and blue ball the defenders until they tire of the game.
Those are good points.
But this is the Entosis Link and ship balancing thread.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12098
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 05:21:35 -
[20] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote: What is the problem with just showing up during the alliance prime time window to defend the sov?
While I hate adding to the derailment of the thread...
If that's your actual prime time, and you have to babysit your TCU for four hour per day...
When are you supposed to actually play the game?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12101
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 09:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Intys are countered and sov defended by a single ship on grid. Apparently though, this is :effort: that is somehow unfair and everyone should neatly line up to die in camp duck shoots instead.
Your dogged insistence on misconstruing other people's arguments aside, you're still totally wrong.
People feel like it's unacceptable that a single "can't touch me!" interceptor ship can force them to have to remain on grid with every structure in their alliance four hours per day.
That's not a fun mechanic, it's not using the sov you live in, and it's not promoting conflict.
It's just babysitting.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12103
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:18:26 -
[22] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get."
The really fun part is that it's on purpose. He's not stupid, he's trying to push his agenda.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12105
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 07:08:46 -
[23] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:I have said there that I am against afk play of any sort
This, from one of the most public defenders of mining, miners and general carebearing.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12105
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 07:21:08 -
[24] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: CSM Corebloodbrother and his near religious hatred of ISBoxers, and his admittance that he forced CCP to turn around regarding ISBoxer discredits your claim.
I have not been keeping an eye who tries to take credit for what, however, the change of policy in regards of ISBoxer was probably a reasonable decision and possibly backed up by the data at CCP disposal (say, based on number of people dropping sub because of "ISBoxer" as the reason).
Well, if it wasn't core, then he took great pleasure in the decision. His taunting in that thread exceeded even mine, and I've been a vocal anti ISBoxer advocate for a long time.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12106
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 10:39:36 -
[25] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue!
And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue.
It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave.
So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12106
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 10:54:41 -
[26] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue!
And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue. It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave. So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom. weaponised boredom, as pointed out in the devblog, is something they want to move away from.
Move away from, highly incentivize, same basic principle.
The point is that something is being done about/with weaponized boredom.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12106
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:48:29 -
[27] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote: Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway. Do not delete it again.
It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12106
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 12:01:55 -
[28] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote: Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway. Do not delete it again.
It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it? That's not my problem. If I'm quoting a rule breaking post, but my post itself doesn't break the rules, then ISD should just snip the rule breaking post instead of deleting my post entirely. The same goes for every other post that gets deleted for this reason.
I don't disagree, but discussing forum moderation won't help. I believe you need to file a ticket if you have an issue with forum moderation. Don't know for certain, never tried it myself.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12107
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 12:39:57 -
[29] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote: nothing about the new sov system makes me want to go and particpate in anything remotely related to sov.
My metric was much the same. When I said to myself "Self, what would you do with this new system?", he answered with "well, about all that can be done is just screw with the people who live there, make their lives hell."
Then the third guy said "Hey wait, we already have a way to screw with renters, AFK cloaking, and it works fine", to which myself responded "Yeah, but now we can force them to waste literal hours of their time with almost no recourse against us".
And the fourth guy chimed in with "Yes, precious! We will take the Fedo from the filthy Gallente, yes yes! Gollum!" and then the other three whacked him on the noggin.
And yes, before you mention it, I am fully aware that I have a rich inner life.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12111
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:27:09 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal.
Then make it disable prop mods on a ship activating it.
Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. The solution is to make them impossible.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12111
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 22:35:20 -
[31] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible.
[Citation needed]
Ever heard of these new things they have now, called people? People will always take the low road, they will always do as little as possible to get to their goals. It's really rather interesting.
Sarcasm aside, it's a binary equation. Either it's possible to capture sov by dicking around in a kiting ship, or it's not. If it is, then it's a damn sight easier than actually fighting for sov, so it will become the optimal assignment of resources.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12115
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 11:49:01 -
[32] - Quote
NPC corp characters can use this? You have got to be kidding me.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12120
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 12:17:25 -
[33] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote: Any "solution" that relies on restricting mods to certain hull sizes, or disallows T2 links on certain ships, or artificially reduces speed will invalidate several current and future fleet comps.
Good. That's the point.
Quote: Since that's explicitly not a goal of CCP's
And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs.
They need to make their choice on the matter. Personally, I suggest they think about my original suggestion of making the Entosis link disable all prop mods on the activating ship.
Doesn't restrict what can mount the blasted thing, and it stops people from dicking around until the other guy dies of boredom.
The only reason anyone would be against such a thing is if they are intending to kite for their sov, not fight for it.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12120
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 12:27:51 -
[34] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Basically, you want a "discussion" that's just all of you having 0.0 fantasies about ending evil cfc
So a hilarious echochamber "discussion". Go have it on reddit or something
You're likely to just get whatever has been planned anyway, since I doubt they'll change much so might as well begin planning out your interceptor fits and start buying so you won't have to when everything is overpriced just before/after the patch I don't want a discussion. I want a system not made for one coalition, not made by people who balance the game exclusively in the interest of the said coalition. Dinsdale?
Nope, but check this guy's post history for a few good laughs.
He thinks docking and pos shields are both exploits.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12120
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 13:05:42 -
[35] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote: "Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things.
They are not, at least not in this context.
It is either possible to capture sov by dicking around until the other guy gets bored, or it's not.
Disabling prop mods solves it nicely.
It keeps all of their goals intact, it does not restrict choice of hull, it promotes conflict instead of kiting, and it forces either side to have military control of the grid.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
|