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) |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:06:42 -
[541] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range
at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid.
The inty has now moved on and is RFing another structure. You can, of course, go chase him off again, over and over, for the next four hours.
Does this sound fun to you? How many days will you do this before you just stop logging in? |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2634
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:07:26 -
[542] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK.
i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even *gasp* tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation.
The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because *gasp* NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6576
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:07:49 -
[543] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Jaiimez Skor wrote:Ilaister wrote:While brawling doctrines would be far from optimal I think the HIC will see a fair bit of use as an Entosis platform from smaller groups.
Bubble up to hopefully catch reinforcements you're not getting reps anyway. TBH I think you're more likely to see brick tanked Damnations and Proteus' with 600k+ EHP (even after the HP nerf for T3's a proteus will get 600/700k ehp if brick tanked). As far as ways of fixing the concern of snaked out "trollceptors" then maybe as well as remote reps have a reduction to the effectiveness of propulsion mods, I disagree with disabling propulsion mods, but say a 60% reduction in the efficiency of propulsion module speed boosts should be plenty, so instead of doing 7km/s it'll only do about 4/4.5 which is easily cachable. this is one of many options that would discourage the use of interceptors as the primary vehicle for contesting sov however since ccp refuses to commit to any one of these, we are forced to assume that they aren't coming So... this thread has no point but to lightning rod from the other thread that' nearing 200pages?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
337
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:07:52 -
[544] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:this is one of many options that would discourage the use of interceptors as the primary vehicle for contesting sov
however since ccp refuses to commit to any one of these, we are forced to assume that they aren't coming You know how they made a thread to discuss the mod...and have 3 months to make a decision on any changes to it...yeah that. |
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:08:13 -
[545] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello folks. I'm making this discussion thread to give you all a closer look at our design philosophy for the Entosis Link mechanics and the way we plan to balance the module.
We've been seeing quite a bit of concern from parts of the community that the Entosis Link mechanics will push people to pure evasion fits, the so called trollceptors. It goes without saying that we do not want the sov war meta turn into nothing but sensor boosting Interceptors, but we have plenty of time and tools to help ensure that scenario doesn't occur.
To explain our current approach and help focus the feedback, I want to discuss some of our specific goals for the Entosis Link mechanic itself.
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.
At its core, the Entosis Link mechanic is a way for the server to tell who won (or is winning) a fight in a specific location. This is a surprisingly tough thing for the server to determine. The best way to win a structure or command node with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. This means that there will always be an intermediate state where the grid is "contested" and neither side is making significant progress until the fight is resolved.
The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.
This is the other side of the coin. In practice it means that we should discourage mechanics that lead to indefinite stalemates over a structure or command node. This is the reason for the "no remote reps" condition on active Links. This is also the goal that trollceptors would contradict if they were to become dominant.
The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.
Entosis Links will always have some effect on the types of ships and tactics people find viable for Sov warfare, but we should strive to keep those effects to a minimum. As much as possible, we should work towards a meta where whatever fleet concept would win the fight and control the grid would also be viable for using the Entosis Links. This also means that we don't want to be using the Entosis Links to intentionally manipulate ship use. We've seen some people suggesting that we restrict Entosis Links to battleships, command ships or capital ships in order to buff those classes. Using the Entosis Link mechanics to artificially skew the meta in that way is not something we are interested in doing. This goal is why we intend to use the lightest touch possible when working towards the first two goals. It would be easy to overreact to potentially unwanted uses of the Entosis Link by placing extremely harsh restrictions on the module, but we believe that by looking at the situation in a calm and measured manner we can find a good balance.
The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.
This is a fairly obvious goal but I do think it's worth stating explicitly. If we can achieve similar results with two different sets of restrictions and penalties, we'll generally prefer to use the simpler and more understandable set. This also means that we'd generally prefer to use pre-existing mechanics that players will already be familiar with, rather than using completely new mechanics.
All in all, I want to make it very clear that we are going to make adjustments to the Entosis Link in order to get the best possible gameplay and to match these goals as well as possible. If we clearly see a situation emerging where any pure evasion tactics are going to become dominant, we will make changes to the Entosis Link to bring the gameplay back into balance. We expect that there will be many changes and tweaks to the Entosis Link module before launch, and more tweaks made after launch as needed. We have all of the numerous tools of EVE module balance at our disposal and everything is on the table. We can use everything from module price, range, fittings, cap use, mass penalties, ship restrictions, speed limits and many many more. We intend to use as few of these dials as possible and use the lightest touch possible, but we do have the tools we need to reach these goals.
We would like this thread to become a place of discussion around the Entosis Link mechanics, the ships that you expect to use them on, and the tactics you foresee becoming popular. What issues do you foresee popping up? How do you think these goals should be adjusted or refocused? Which of the many module balance dials do you think would be the most intuitive?
Please keep discussion calm and reasonable. Remember that even though we're not making knee-jerk reactions, we are definitely listening and working to get this balance right.
Thanks -Fozzie
I Would propose to "nerf" the t2 range form 250 km down to 30-50 km. And for the timer it should be necessary to let the link run the whole timer on the node. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:08:14 -
[546] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range
at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid. agreed, they have managed to defend that one objective in significantly less agile ships now the interceptor is RFing something else, better waddle out at 3 AU/s to the next beacon or bring a logarithmically increasing number of defenders to stop one person Nope, just go back to ratting, let the local defenders in the new location deal with this minor pest. It's like a wasp at a picnic, do you have one guy running around flapping at it shooing it away from all the diners or does each diner look after their own personal space and periodically raise a lazy hand to waft it away to its next place of rest? here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again |
Acuma
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:11 -
[547] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range
at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid. agreed, they have managed to defend that one objective in significantly less agile ships now the interceptor is RFing something else, better waddle out at 3 AU/s to the next beacon or bring a logarithmically increasing number of defenders to stop one person Nope, just go back to ratting, let the local defenders in the new location deal with this minor pest. It's like a wasp at a picnic, do you have one guy running around flapping at it shooing it away from all the diners or does each diner look after their own personal space and periodically raise a lazy hand to waft it away to its next place of rest? here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
190
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:12 -
[548] - Quote
If the T2 link's price was increased to 200M ISK, how many hours per day would you be happy to spend killing and looting "trollceptors"? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4240
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:23 -
[549] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:You only have to defend the structure that is being attacked... A lone interceptor can only RF on structure at a time... A group of interceptors would simply require a similar group of defenders to respond. The main difference is that you can no longer wait hours for a more ideal formup and then attack with your full force, you have to act more quickly.
No you don't. You have to defend the entire lot because it takes two minutes to cycle the module which, if uninterrupted, presumably puts the structure in to reinforced mode (the blog is a bit unclear on this, it could use some clarification). So for example, let's say 3L3N has a Jump Bridge (I genuinely can't remember whether it does or not), it would be considered a strategically important system. Doubly so if it had an R64 or more there. http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66967/1/entosislinksimple_(1).jpg
If the enemy stops using the entosis link on the structure, the capture/RF processes is paused. They must keep the entosis link on for the first cycle + 10-30 minutes (depending on system sov indexes).
John McCreedy wrote: The nearest station we can put a Jump Clone in is five jumps away. However, we have no idea how many are in local. Could be one ship, could be one hundred ships. You race over and if it's one ship, you can attempt to engage but the Interceptor is fit for speed so can easily keep out of your tackle or ECM or engagement range. You can go in a sniper but its sig radius is so low and transversal are so high you haven't a hope in hell's chance of tracking it. All he has to do is keep this up for two minutes and your sov is now vulnerable.
It takes two minutes to start the RF cycle. Then it takes another 10-30 minutes to complete the RF process, which you can pause by activating your own entosis module on the structure. If it is a lone ship, it is super easy to counter. If it is more, you still have 10-30 minutes to get intel, form up, and save the structure, with the ability to send your own super-speedy inty to pause the process while your allies form up and head on over.
John McCreedy wrote: But the thing is, do you seriously think those out to cause mischief are going to stop at one system? It's easy for the majority of alliances to form up 51 Ceptors and attack 51 systems simultaneously and this is considered balance? You can fit for speed and attack them and you might kill them but they could cyno in a mate in a cloaky hauler full of interceptor hulls and fits, park it at a safe spot with a mobile fitting thingy and fit up a new captor and go at it again. Even if they don't, even if you successfully kill ship and pod, there's still 50 other systems to worry about.
Manpower becomes an issue because then there's escalation across all systems. They bring two, you bring two, so they bring three but you're a small alliance so haven't enough people online. The system we have right now, for all its faults, is unlikely to result in multiple systems attacked simultaneously. Smaller alliances are at a disadvantage as much as they are right now so it screws over everyone. It's this that's one of the big issues with the proposed changes.
If you are being attacked by 50 people, then you should probably attempt to defend with 50 people.... if you can't, then your **** will be reinforced, giving you 48 hours to get together a CTA and truly defend the structure. If you're being attacked by an overwhelming force, then you lose the system.
Smaller alliances will always be at a disadvantage, and nothing ccp implements will change that. The difference between this new system and the current system is you can actually initiate an attack and put the big guy's sov structures in danger. In the current system, they have to be really, really ambivalent before a small entity can have any impact on the sov of some huge coalition. |
Koshka narkotikov
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:56 -
[550] - Quote
Not allowing interdiction nullified ships to hack the structures seems like an easy way to prevent this from getting too silly. |
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:10:18 -
[551] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK.
i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even *gasp* tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation. The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because *gasp* NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT. um constellations have at minimum five systems, and with three objectives each that is fifteen dudes to counter one dude
and the interceptor is not hardlocked into defending that system
if you had to actually risk something to necessitate this response I'd have no issues with it |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
316
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:10:55 -
[552] - Quote
Groperson wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:The Mittani wrote:Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.
- Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
- Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
- Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.
I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! Nope. We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm. Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics. Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors. The thing is, if you allow interceptors to attack sov. What do you risk as the attacker? Even in the most well defended region of space: deklein, you can just zoom interceptor gangs through with no risk because they are uncatchable. That' bubble spam' that you encounter is called 'the residents defending their space' You are advocating that even if residents defend their space, they will never be able to catch the people who are attacking it. That is broken, you risk nothing for attack and yet force the defenders to form a response and if it is insufficiently quick, do 10x the amount of work than the attackers. If you want to play at the sov game then you should have to risk something, if you allow entosis links on interceptors, the attacker risks nothing. Whilst the defender has everything at risk.
Interceptor that cant warp for minimum 2 minutes after pressing the sov laser button is anything but "risk-free". Figure out from where are the bastards usually warping in, park a rapier or lachesis somewhere nearby and farm them. every second one drops ~80 mil isk module apparently.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:11:38 -
[553] - Quote
Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's.
except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
289
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:11:52 -
[554] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:
edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments?
We don't blob a thread really, actually Goons in general don't even enjoy reading and posting on Eve Online forums much, but Fozzie Sov is so ridiculously out of touch and premature that we feel compelled to do so. Morever, if there is a truth that needs to be acknowledged, it's that I'm really enjoying to read the opinions of a high-sec salvager about the sovereign null. It's really amusing.
Now, if you of course had a prior regular experience of getting out of your Noctis in empire every once in a while, and instead have taken your time to live in sovereign null for an extended period, you would have known that Goons (and by extension CFC) is probably the only major null power that actually use their own sovereign null space.
But please, don't be a stranger. Continue to share your opinion on a type of space you have no prior experience with. Even serious forum posters need a break sometimes, and your posts really help during those breaks. Thank you! |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
337
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:12:29 -
[555] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance?
Alp Khan wrote:We don't blob really, but if there is a truth that needs to be acknowledged, it's that I'm really enjoying to read the opinions of a high-sec salvager about the sovereign null. It's really amusing.
Now, if you of course had a prior regular experience of getting out of your Noctis in empire every once in a while, and instead have taken your time to live in sovereign null for an extended period, you would have known that Goons (and by extension CFC) is probably the only major null power that actually use their own sovereign null space.
But please, don't be a stranger! Continue to share your opinion on a type of space you have no prior experience with! Even serious forum posters need a break sometimes, and your posts really help during those breaks. Thank you! lol ad-hominem at an avatar of an alt. A useless point alliteratively dismissed. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
316
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:13:34 -
[556] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Callduron wrote:I think Damps will be a pretty hard counter to any trollceptor.
Maybe a frigate that can lock to 80km and and move 8km/s sounds scary but a cheap Celestis dunks it completely. Just sit on the beacon and damp it, the ceptor has to come to within 20km and all sorts of tactics will kill a tankless frigate 20km away. you can easily get inty fits to well over 80km, especially once you get pairs of inties boosting each other this also is the same dumb response that ignores the interceptor can't be caught, merely its trolling made successful by forcing you to sit on a gate doing nothing but staring impotently at it, while it can then vary it up by moving on to the next system
Active sov laser prevents remote assistance. Including remote SEBO's as far as I understand.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Acuma
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:13:58 -
[557] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's.
except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon So he wins, you lose. You move on and start another RF timer which alerts them and they come and chase you off again because it takes you a minimum of 10 minutes to RF. I just started playing this game and I think I understand this new mechanic better than you LOL. You essentially cause zero harm to any system with players in it......and even systems within however many jumps an inty can make in 10+ minutes.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:13:59 -
[558] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance? more, because the small alliance caps out faster than a large alliance does
goonswarm federation lives in deklein and can successfully withstand a higher degree of ceptor beacon spam than a smaller alliance trying to do the same |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
337
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:15:49 -
[559] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance? more, because the small alliance caps out faster than a large alliance does goonswarm federation lives in deklein and can successfully withstand a higher degree of ceptor beacon spam than a smaller alliance trying to do the same The small alliance is defending one system and requires one person. Wrong answer.
Anyway, keep on ship-toasting I'm glad it won't be me topping the forum stats on this thread :) |
Luscius Uta
133
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:16:08 -
[560] - Quote
Trollceptors will not be an issue since a Celestis with bonused Information warfare links and a single remote sensor booster on it can damp and target from more than 200km away (and each Celestis can take care of up to 5 Trollceptors since that's how many Remote Sensor Dampeners it can fit).
I predict that most dedicated attackers will use Ubertanked Proteuses with Dissolution Sequencers subsystems or even Bastioned Marauders, those are not cheap of course but have infinitely greater chance to have their Entosis link running uninterrupted for 2 minutes, and even more importantly, stay alive at the end of it.
I'm not fat, I'm just over-tanked!
|
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:16:40 -
[561] - Quote
Acuma wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's.
except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon So he wins, you lose. You move on and start another RF timer which alerts them and they come and chase you off again because it takes you a minimum of 10 minutes to RF. I just started playing this game and I think I understand this new mechanic better than you LOL. You essentially cause zero harm to any system with players in it......and even systems within however many jumps an inty can make in 10+ minutes. it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day
if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request |
Acuma
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:17:11 -
[562] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Trollceptors will not be an issue since a Celestis with bonused Information warfare links and a single remote sensor booster on it can damp and target from more than 200km away (and each Celestis can take care of up to 5 Trollceptors since that's how many Remote Sensor Dampeners it can fit).
I predict that most dedicated attackers will use Ubertanked Proteuses with Dissolution Sequencers subsystems or even Bastioned Marauders, those are not cheap of course but have infinitely greater chance to have their Entosis link running uninterrupted for 2 minutes, and even more importantly, stay alive at the end of it. 2 minutes to start it up......minimum of 10 to actually RF. That's in an unused system. Was it like 40+ in a highly used one?
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2634
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:17:22 -
[563] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK.
i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even *gasp* tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation. The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because *gasp* NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT. um constellations have at minimum five systems, and with three objectives each that is fifteen dudes to counter one dude and the interceptor is not hardlocked into defending that system if you had to actually risk something to necessitate this response I'd have no issues with it And the 1 inty has to capture more nodes than your 2 cerberii.
Which it cant.
Because capture speed is the same.
So for every node the inty takes, your cerberii (or ffs Caracals, it's not like an inty can force a caracal off the field) take 2 nodes.
2 nodes/10 minutes > 1 node/10 minutes.
Oh, and if you have occupancy advantages, it takes him 40 minutes to drop a node. Whereas it does not take you 40 minutes to secure a node since you don't have a defender penalty. So 1 defending caracal in an occupied constellation with defender advantage is worth 4 interceptors.
OR: 1 Caracal > 3 Trollceptors
GG NO RE.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:17:54 -
[564] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance? more, because the small alliance caps out faster than a large alliance does goonswarm federation lives in deklein and can successfully withstand a higher degree of ceptor beacon spam than a smaller alliance trying to do the same The small alliance is defending one system and requires one person. Wrong answer. Anyway, keep on ship-toasting I'm glad it won't be me topping the forum stats on this thread :) so alliances should only be able to hold a single system, gotcha |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:19:01 -
[565] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK.
i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even *gasp* tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation. The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because *gasp* NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT. um constellations have at minimum five systems, and with three objectives each that is fifteen dudes to counter one dude and the interceptor is not hardlocked into defending that system if you had to actually risk something to necessitate this response I'd have no issues with it And the 1 inty has to capture more nodes than your 2 cerberii. Which it cant. Because capture speed is the same. So for every node the inty takes, your cerberii (or ffs Caracals, it's not like an inty can force a caracal off the field) take 2 nodes. 2 nodes/10 minutes > 1 node/10 minutes. Oh, and if you have occupancy advantages, it takes him 40 minutes to drop a node. Whereas it does not take you 40 minutes to secure a node since you don't have a defender penalty. So 1 defending caracal in an occupied constellation with defender advantage is worth 4 interceptors. OR: 1 Caracal > 3 Trollceptors
GG NO RE. you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
316
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:03 -
[566] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote: Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link.
It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure.
the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp
Did you read that little note that this sov laser thingy disables ability to warp while its active?
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
338
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:05 -
[567] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread Deklein's gonna have a bad case of teenage acne methinks. |
Acuma
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:11 -
[568] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Acuma wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's.
except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon So he wins, you lose. You move on and start another RF timer which alerts them and they come and chase you off again because it takes you a minimum of 10 minutes to RF. I just started playing this game and I think I understand this new mechanic better than you LOL. You essentially cause zero harm to any system with players in it......and even systems within however many jumps an inty can make in 10+ minutes. it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request You mean like high sec ganking? |
Leisha Miranen
The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:20 -
[569] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread
I just wanted to note that you've now posted more than 72 times in this thread. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
605
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 19:21:19 -
[570] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote: Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link.
It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure.
the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp Did you read that little note that this sov laser thingy disables ability to warp while its active? yes, and that is not an issue for a ship that is faster than nearly everything else in the game
an interceptor decides it is time to bug out, but its link is still active? just burn off grid while it falls off |
|
|
|
|
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 |