Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:26:09 -
[331] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote: restrict the enthosis link to cap ships.
Say hello to the new meta - same as the old meta, but now worse, because you HAVE to have caps and supers to take sov.
Thanks no.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:26:55 -
[332] - Quote
This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons:
- Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever.
- Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them.
- "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK.
- To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once.
So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure.
If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots).
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6166
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:28:01 -
[333] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Killian Cormac wrote:FT Diomedes wrote: Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies. If this isn't a design goal, it should be. The largest player organizations shouldn't be able to control more than the largest named area to begin with. this is a pretty romantic idea but it breaks down in practice due to the geography of eve in order to live in places like the drone regions, period basis, and most of the south, you either need to own or be friendly with the folks in regions closer to empire or your space is completely worthless fortunately deklein does not fall prey to this so personally i'm okay with the idea, for what it's worth Interesting that people jump completely past the very true statement made above and immediately assume the point is that the person speaking is interested in "taking someone's space".
If troll 'ceptors converge on your space, you simply need to have enough players or preferably alts to cover all of the necessary structures with 1 Entosis link each. Put them in a tanked cruiser or whatever and ignore it unless it's attacked directly.
If your alliance doesn't have enough alts / players willing to cover all of your capturable structures, then you are attempting to hold more territory than you can control and deserve to loose it to anyone willing to take it by this method.
If you DO have plenty of alts / players to put one ship in each important point... those trollceptor attacks are pointless and their frequency will (overall) drop off after awhile. Of course, there will be resurgences... but that's the nature of the beast.
Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:28:01 -
[334] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:MASSADEATH wrote:Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved...
or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors....
All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup
We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it.
The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space.
What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive. You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it.
Its ok..... you can stage out of X-70 and become"NPC trash" as well :)
we have no delusions of holding SOV..we will however take some :) and then lose it..and take it again..and lose it... ect ect
The fun will be roaming fleets of "sov ships" RFing multiple Goon/CFC systems at once... and then the rolling system fights to see if you can hold it. Forget killing your ratters.... we will be in the business of killing IHUBS :) and TCU's..so stock up :)
will we be perma dropping on your goodies ...so enjoy... |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:28:40 -
[335] - Quote
Super Noodle wrote:Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage.
No, it's really not. There are some issues, but it's better than what we have now.
Of course tunnelling out of Alcatraz with a plastic spoon would be better than what we have now.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:29:18 -
[336] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Killian Cormac wrote: If we can't dream in a fantasy game, where can we dream?
eve is a sci-fi game not fantasy checkmate b*tch
Just because it has space ships doesn't make it science fiction. |
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:31:07 -
[337] - Quote
Corey Lean wrote:MASSADEATH wrote:The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty.
so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7?
or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :)
What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :) |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
631
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:31:34 -
[338] - Quote
MASSADEATH wrote: so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7?
the whole point is we're willing to fight, but you won't be |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
597
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:32:47 -
[339] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can.
the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
641
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:34:10 -
[340] - Quote
MASSADEATH wrote:Corey Lean wrote:MASSADEATH wrote:The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty. so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :) What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :)
You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation?
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:34:28 -
[341] - Quote
Johnny Twelvebore wrote:All this complaining about "trollceptors" is making my head hurt.
If your problem is a ceptor which is fit to lock at 200km then it's combat viability is almost zero, use another fast ship to kill it - as the rules currently stand it cannot warp with the new module active. There are plenty of fast missile ships to choose from.
End of discussion, if your multi thousand man sov holding entity cannot catch one ceptor which is essentially already tackled by virtue of using it's sov module then perhaps you don't deserve that sov.
Alternatively I would be happy to accept ISK to come and teach you how to fly. I hear wild goose chases make for fun and engaging gameplay.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:34:40 -
[342] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons:
- Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever.
- Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them.
- "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK.
- To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once.
So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots).
Who are you and why are you making good posts with Gevlon's character |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6166
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:35:21 -
[343] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:MASSADEATH wrote:Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved...
or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors....
All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup
We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it.
The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space.
What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive. You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it.
So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before?
For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow?
I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
329
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:35:55 -
[344] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation? What army do we need? I thought absolutely any single player can just jump in an interceptor and roam about Deklein for a lark...we don't need an army/blob remember?
|
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:35:58 -
[345] - Quote
All this **** is so wrong I agreed with Gevlon Goblin twice in a week. Please stop. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
631
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:15 -
[346] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before?
we don't get fights with enemies in interceptors, a ship designed so you never have to take a fight you might lose |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
756
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:27 -
[347] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp The fact that it can't "disengage at will" while an Entosis Link is active? Which gives a defender up to 2 minutes to close and kill it? Especially when the fight starts at less than 80km due to combat probes? how do you close on an interceptor before it burns off grid exactly hint: they go fast, can't be bubbled, and scrams have a very short range on anything that can keep up with them You combat probe onto grid with them, and blap them before they leave grid. This isn't hard.
Or, alternatively, since you have links and they don't you simply fly faster than them and kill them. Again, this isn't hard.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Xavi Bastanold
Koalas In The Rain
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:36 -
[348] - Quote
I don't really see a problem with trollceptors for the simple reason that 1000-man coalitions will always have a numbers advantage no matter the mechanics. As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. So that's a given. What is more important is to create a mechanic that allows anywhere from 10 to 100 players to take a system, barring resistance. If a coalition responds then it's not going to happen, but if they don't then it happens.
Should a coalition system be taken, then the next question for the coalition is did they really want that system anyway? Maybe they just want fights and so that's great. On the hand, what if a neighboring coalition decides to allow a few systems to become independent buffers and spare themselves the added involvement. That frees them up to hammer the next-door coalition that's so intent on fighting every border battle. This sort of thing is good for EVE.
Good hunting,
Xavi
|
Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:46 -
[349] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:the whole point is we're willing to fight
Doesn't sound like it. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
599
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:37:03 -
[350] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before?
For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow?
I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone. interceptors don't generate fights, they run away
why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15430
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:37:14 -
[351] - Quote
afkalt wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.
They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship. A 100m isk, 2k EHP ship with a billion isk pod? I'm sure they'll be ten-a-penny
We toss around supercaps and titans like subcaps. Cost is in no way a barrier.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
599
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:38:35 -
[352] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation? What army do we need? I thought absolutely any single player can just jump in an interceptor and roam about Deklein for a lark...we don't need an army/blob remember? the point is our numbers allow us to defend our sov, but the fact that you need goonswarm federation caliber supernumeracy to hold space is a bit of a problem for anyone else |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
330
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:38:42 -
[353] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before?
For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow?
I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone. interceptors don't generate fights, they run away why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways.
edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:39:27 -
[354] - Quote
First off, Fozzie, thank you for taking the time to give us a better idea of the intentions and thought process behind the Entosis Link. As you can see from many of the comments, the idea that the victory should go to the side that can maintain successful military control of a grid isnGÇÖt one the community feels is a bad idea. Yes, there are almost certainly people who will feel that measures like this are functionally nothing more than games of GÇÿcapture the flagGÇÖ, but to those individuals I say: What isnGÇÖt?
Blowing something up, after all, is really just node control - you carved out a period of time where you were able to click on the flag (ie: do dps) while the other team couldnGÇÖt do enough to stop you.
More importantly, GÇÿcapture the flagGÇÖ itself is simulating objective control is actual warfare. ItGÇÖs how people for a very long time have represented being able to take a location, or secure an objective, or destroy a target. So if something resembling the oldest form of wargaming finds its way into our game simulating warGǪ where, exactly, is the problem?
That said, I believe the Entosis Link, by its very nature, falls short of some of your goals.
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.
The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.
If the Entosis Link is functioning as a barometer of the fight (or fights, in the case of multiple command node spawns) for control of a Sov Structure, then it makes sense that you donGÇÖt want it to effect the fitting of the ships used in these fights any more than necessary. It is, of course, almost impossible to do so - at the very least, as a module, it will take up one of the shipGÇÖs available slots. This, in turn, pushes the metagame toward ships with utility high-slots, such as Ishtars, Hurricanes, Tempests, etc*. Any ship that sacrifices a weapon to fit a link is reducing its contribution to actually controlling the grid, in favor of being what amounts to a battlefield reporter, letting CONCORD know whatGÇÖs going on.
ThatGÇÖs suboptimal.
In addition, as you can see from the comments in this thread and the original one, the restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link arenGÇÖt well-understood yet. Does it prevent cloaking? If it doesnGÇÖt, does the module deactivate as soon as you cloak, or does it complete its cycle? If it completes its cycle, does that cycle GÇÿcountGÇÖ for the structure?
And thatGÇÖs just asking about a Cloaking Device.
As a module, the Entosis Link cannot help but affect the combat effectiveness of available fittings, and through that, the choice of viable ships to use the link and what role those ships play in the larger combat.
But what if itGÇÖs not a module?
My first thought was an implant - but then you canGÇÖt have it not effectively interfering with alliesGÇÖ defense. What would be needed instead would be some form of social construct that allowed players and organizations to select which GÇÿlinkGÇÖ (or links) the structure/command node is influenced by at any given time.
Like a fleet.
If, instead of a new module, a new fleet mechanic was used as your barometer, then fitting requirements and concerns, and the attendant ship selection issues, all vanish. Come up with a snappy name for it, like GÇÿFleet ColorsGÇÖ or GÇÿFleet StandardGÇÖ, except actually snappy and not really, really bad like those two.
The idea here is that a given fleet represents a given Alliance. A fleet forming in defense of an FCON station represents FCONGÇÖs presence on-grid and potential control of the grid. A fleet representing Goonswarm on that same grid doesnGÇÖt make FCONGÇÖs space any more FCON.
Obviously, then, you need to have a method for determining who the fleet is representing. The equally obvious metric is GÇÿwhoGÇÖs in the fleet?GÇÖ While single-alliance fleets might seem like the way to approach this, itGÇÖs also likely this will simply see the current blocs consolidating into as few alliances as possible in order to simplify defense and coordination - in effect, creating GÇÿCFC 1GÇÖ, GÇÿCFC 2GÇÖ, GÇÿN3 1GÇÖ, GÇÿN3 2GÇÖ etc, with membership based purely on regional location, and member corps GÇÿdeployingGÇÖ from one alliance to another within the same bloc.
Which, while it might be rather amusing to watch, wonGÇÖt really solve anything.
Instead, as a simple framework, I suggest simply using leadership. The Fleet Commander is the obvious point, but this introduces a single point-of-failure, and as we all know, single points-of-failure are bad. But a fleet ranges in size from 2 people to 256, with anywhere from 1 to 31 leadership positions. Use those. 51% of a fleetGÇÖs leadership positions (Fleet Commander, Wing Commanders, Squad Commanders) would have to be members of the same alliance in order for that fleet to represent that alliance in Sov warfare. Hodge-podge fleets where no single alliance is capable of mustering 51% of the leadership would simply not exert an influence on grid control, but alliances able to muster a solid leadership cadre would be able to take advantage of allies willing to fly under their colors.
In addition, each fleet would only be able to influence a single Sov Node (structure or command node) at a time. This way, rather than (to continue our example), FCON forming up a single fleet and contributing 16 people (51% of the maximum number of leadership positions) in order to defend 10 Command nodes, while CONDI, RZR, etc fill out the fleet in warm bodies, the leadership of the defense would need to fall on the shoulders of the defending alliance. Of course, filling a fleet with warm bodies opens the door to spies reporting precisely which pilots are in leadership positions, and so need to be killed in order to cripple a fleetGÇÖs influence.
(Continued) |
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:39:59 -
[355] - Quote
Killian Cormac wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:the whole point is we're willing to fight Doesn't sound like it. fighting ~ spend 4h a day shooting space gypsies flying frigates/t1 cruisers, that's a job. Challenging a sov should be accesible to even 5 players alliances, but at list they should risk something. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:40:14 -
[356] - Quote
(Continued from above)
Fleet Influence on a sov node would function in a manner similar to the Entosis Links - at 51% of the leadership of a fleet being from a single alliance, the effective range of that influence would be limited to 25km from the nearest command-level ship to the Node or structure. At 75%, the range increases to 50km, and at 100%, 200km. Similarly, the fleetGÇÖs influence does not effect the node/structure until the node/structure has been in range for 5 minutes for 51%, 3m for 75%, or 2m at 100% alliance leadership. Any ship which is cloaked or off-grid in a leadership position would not count toward establishing Fleet Influence.
This way, in order for a fleet to actually represent its alliance, the leadership of the fleet must be on-grid, uncloaked, and vulnerable. Defending leadership assets would become of critical importance.
Obviously, itGÇÖs not a perfect proposal - you canGÇÖt reasonably have all of your fleetGÇÖs leadership unable to be remotely repaired in most fights, but at the same time, without that vulnerability, how do you prevent node contests from simply devolving into GÇÿdrop supers on itGÇÖ?
At the other end of the scale, though, a trollceptor is not going to control a grid - unless itGÇÖs unopposed, in which case it certainly should. Undefended space, poorly defended space, these things shouldnGÇÖt take a lot of pushing in order to topple. And sovholders should definitely be required to show up for the defense of their own space. The idea of leaving the defense to GÇÿPapa GoonGÇÖ or some renter allianceGÇÖs landlord coalition would only leave us with the current sprawling morass of systems that nobody with the wherewithal to take and hold sov wants to live in, but plenty of people who donGÇÖt have the strength to stake their own claims are willing to rent out. This only serves to stifle any hope of a dynamic nullsec, and funnel money into the pockets of the Coalition landlords.
But when thereGÇÖs a fight - and there should be fights - the Command Node system will effectively force responding forces to spread out around the constellation in order to facilitate defense (or capture). There will have to be multiple responders, after all, or itGÇÖs simply a case of GÇÿthe fastest ship winsGÇÖ, and thatGÇÖs really not in keeping with the idea that this is meant to represent effective military control of space.
WhatGÇÖs needed under this idea is a way to prevent every fight from simply becoming an escalation to GÇÿwho has supercapitals nearby to drop on the nodes?GÇÖ The jump changes helped in this regard, but only to the point where subcapitals would now be used as skirmishers to delay any hostile victory until the supercapitals can arrive to lock down the node/structure.
Even with that obvious work still to be done, I feel this idea better matches your goals than the use of a new module does.
*- NOTE: These are examples of utility high slot ships, not necessarily optimal ships for any given situation. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
599
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:40:39 -
[357] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp The fact that it can't "disengage at will" while an Entosis Link is active? Which gives a defender up to 2 minutes to close and kill it? Especially when the fight starts at less than 80km due to combat probes? how do you close on an interceptor before it burns off grid exactly hint: they go fast, can't be bubbled, and scrams have a very short range on anything that can keep up with them You combat probe onto grid with them, and blap them before they leave grid. This isn't hard. Or, alternatively, since you have links and they don't you simply fly faster than them and kill them. Again, this isn't hard. they must not have dscan where you live
"oh hrm combat probes on dscan, maybe i should stay here" |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
632
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:41:08 -
[358] - Quote
Killian Cormac wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:the whole point is we're willing to fight Doesn't sound like it. we have the npc/moa crowd demanding to use ships that absolutely cannot be caught for their entosis hulls, while we're saying that we're fine with anything that will actually be at risk and we can blow up because then we get to blow it up
sounds like you have a reading problem to me |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
599
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:41:40 -
[359] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways.
edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments?
you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one
nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor |
Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 17:42:53 -
[360] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:interceptors don't generate fights
Interceptors destabilize sov, and the threat of losing sov DOES generate fights, with plenty of advance notice. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |