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) |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:21:08 -
[1441] - Quote
Zazad Antollare wrote:Ok im going to give a last try to the deployable/drone sov laser
The idea is that in order to make the link have the minimum effect on ships and tactics it should be detached from the ship carrying it. This will make that no matter what doctrine is being used the sov laser is the same for everyone, same hp and same sig/speed tank (if applicable) For the sake of it call it entosis hacking module
Base attributes 1 per ship (low volume) MTU level hp or whatever the devs fell is reasonable Abandoning grid disconnects the module (possible not being able to scoop again) Control ship has to be within 250k (or grid range) Make it that you can only resupply in the same way you can resupply a ship (station, Pos, carrier,GǪ) If high slot is needed for any reason make it that it can be used with a launcher if not make it launch form cargo hold Could be invulnerable while 2 or more links are active so that only when you truly control the grid be either killing the enemy ship with an active module or make them run away you can make the timer advance and not by only killing the module
Requirements: 1-As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. GÇô Check
Only if you kill the enemy or if they leave you can advance the timer
2-The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. - Check
Same as above
3- The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. GÇôCheck
Bring whatever you want, you win the fight you make the timer go forward
4- The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible. GÇô Semi-Check
Some of the penalties that the current iteration of the link has wonGÇÖt be transferable to this system but new ones can be added.
Some people might want KB to show their friends and even though a KB for the link can be generated people still want to kill ships that is the thing that this system might lack. Still I believe is better than a ship link since this way if people really want the sov they have to stay one grid and win the fight (you only have one chance per ship after deploying) or if people only want to troll they can only troll once until resupply (same resupply mechanics as ships).
I feel like this is the best solution.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:21:08 -
[1442] - 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 :)
That is goddam rich coming from you lot, hugging the undock in 5zz and refusing to fight us in your prime time.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
540
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:27:17 -
[1443] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.
You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie Why are you going after him if he just doing what he is told to do?
Because firstly this breakout thread should have appeared over 4 days earlier than it should, secondly CCP fozzie said this thread should have been a more targeted discussion on the Entosis module and it could have been if he had given us a good baasis to start the conversation on balancing such a module but we barely know the mechanics of how it should function based off of the design document CCP Fozzie most likely has in his possession.
A huuuge proportion of this thread is total conjecture and then argumentative assumptions after argumentative assumptions built upon that. Massive amounts of energy, time, commitment and willpower has been leveraged by the player base to argue over this and even after multiple requests for CCP Fozzie to clarify the initial proposal has been made... absolutely nothing.
Yet ISD's have to slog over these threads deleting tolling, inflammatory posts and wild retorts built around complete hypothetical assumptions. all because CCP Fozzie cannot spend 15 more minutes clarifying some aspects of the module from an initial design idea. I mean this has been something CCP has been researching and putting ideas together for near on half a decade, discussing it with multiple CSM delegations and pooling quite possibly millions of man hours of player feedback on throughout the years.
Yet we get an initial targeted post that that clarifies practically nothing more than we received in the inital dev blog, only a promise that if stuff seems like it may become too powerful or stray too far for core principles well use our toolkit to reel it back in. Well holy f**k batman, i thought u were gonna use a seance to change the code in the game. You guys are Computer entertainment developers after all right? |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:37:52 -
[1444] - Quote
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."
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:41:39 -
[1445] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote: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 :) That is goddam rich coming from you lot, hugging the undock in 5zz and refusing to fight us in your prime time. But they don't have a prime time because no sov so
Besides that's the mordus NPCs sov... so...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:44:21 -
[1446] - 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." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind...
So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
924
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:46:15 -
[1447] - Quote
Borachon wrote:50% chance of losing your 1.5b ISK ihub
That's a very off assumption - in moderately upgraded system, the deck is stacked hard in the defenders favor.
>>If the Sovereignty structure exiting its reinforcement period has an owner, then occupancy defense bonuses apply to all of the Command Nodes for that structureGÇÖs event
In other words, defenders always cap in 10 minutes, attackers in 10-40. Multiply that by the 10 nodes required and even a 5 minute difference starts adding up fast.
Unless you blob them - but blobbing to take sov is hardly new and has no bearing on these debates. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6603
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:52:08 -
[1448] - Quote
Stacking more and more required entosis time. Ah, this new version of structure shooting lasering sounds great.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
134
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:53:49 -
[1449] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. Quote: 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.
Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it.
Everyone already knows that goons answer to anything is just blob the hell out of it. Its the only way they can win.
Grr goons.........F1 4evah. |
Borachon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:55:39 -
[1450] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Unless you blob them - but blobbing to take sov... has no bearing on these debates.
My point is that big groups will show up exactly because ihubs are expensive, valuable, and hard to replace. We've all seen how PL has farmed BRAVE, we know how many supers NC. has to throw around, and we all know wxactly who Fozzie is referring to when he talks about "weaponinzing boredom".
Even assuming you're right though, if you contested 95% of ihub pings:
- If it costs the attacker 25m per ihub ping (riiiight...), you'd have to win 75% of ihub reinforces to break even
- If it costs the attacker 10m per ihub ping, you'd have to win almost 90% of ihub reinforces to break even
- If it costs the attacker 5m per ihub ping, you'd have to win 94% of ihub reinforces to break even
That's a pretty heavy burden. |
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
768
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:00:53 -
[1451] - 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." Ironically, he said the same thing about ISBoxing and possibly fighters. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12103
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:18:26 -
[1452] - 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.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6605
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:20:01 -
[1453] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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. Ah, another person who wants to grasp hold of the -ultimate weapon- to end our 0.0 dream.
I mean this sort of thing also happened with fatigue, but I'm sure this time... it will be different.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Dras Malar
Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:22:27 -
[1454] - Quote
These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war.
Honestly I do not understand why we are even talking about the entosis link. It's very discouraging that CCP gets these wild ideas and it doesn't really matter what we say about them, we just have to deal with the fallout. I would love it if we could just scrap this idea about this gimmicky module and go back to coming up with a more streamlined sov system based on existing mechanics. |
Borachon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:26:52 -
[1455] - Quote
Dras Malar wrote:These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war.
In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install. |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
120
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:32:15 -
[1456] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: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." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post
They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6605
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:35:26 -
[1457] - Quote
Borachon wrote:Dras Malar wrote:These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war. In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install. Well basically the isk cost as well as the transport cost (but remember the 0.0 vision of freighter convoys) are both relevant.
It's still likely that eventually you'd just see unihubbed areas, and then the ratting etc is so bad no one lives there, making it even less worthwhile to bother defending or ihubbing it.
So thus, the farm burns down and the fields get overgrown with spaceweeds (not the type you smoke).
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6605
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:37:46 -
[1458] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: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." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors. It's important to for a particular reason.
Let's say it's a bet of sorts.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:40:14 -
[1459] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: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." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors.
I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6605
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:41:16 -
[1460] - Quote
Yeah, massadeath is to cause us to abandon our sov and we'll have to run to other places where we will soon perish is what we will be doing after these changes.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
662
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:42:22 -
[1461] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Borachon wrote:Dras Malar wrote:These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war. In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install. Well basically the isk cost as well as the transport cost (but remember the 0.0 vision of freighter convoys) are both relevant. It's still likely that eventually you'd just see unihubbed areas, and then the ratting etc is so bad no one lives there, making it even less worthwhile to bother defending or ihubbing it. So thus, the farm burns down and the fields get overgrown with spaceweeds (not the type you smoke).
Who cares about your bliddy farm when we can PVE in safety in highsec while roaming you in ceptors.
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?"
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
120
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:42:46 -
[1462] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: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." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors. I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes.
I look forward to watching things burn for a while but we shouldn't forget that some doors swing both ways.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6605
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:44:31 -
[1463] - Quote
Burl en Daire wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote: I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes.
I look forward to watching things burn for a while but we shouldn't forget that some doors swing both ways. Exactly. Massadeath is waiting for grasp the sov laser. It's throbbing green module activation light will end us.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
120
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:48:03 -
[1464] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote: I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes.
I look forward to watching things burn for a while but we shouldn't forget that some doors swing both ways. Exactly. Massadeath is waiting for grasp the sov laser. It's throbbing green module activation light will end us.
Yeah, by the end of the year GSF will just be a broken, smoldering hive of inactivity and bitter vets grasping to hold on to the few sov straws they have left. I am so looking forward to the conglomerate of small null corps and high sec dreamers that bring down the beast.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Freddy Wong
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:36:27 -
[1465] - Quote
Since it does seem that people will be bent on constantly warping from sov structure to sov structure (and anticipating the addition of new anchorable system structures), would allowing an iHub or a station to count as the TCU be unreasonable in FozzieSov? The thought here is once a TCU is down the system is claimed as per normal, but adding an iHub AND a station would remove the need for a TCU, with ownership of the system dependent on who own both the iHub AND the station. Different owners would mean the system was unclaimed. This would mean the most sov structures one would have to defend in a system would be 2.
The point here is to make defending sov slightly easier and make upgraded systems easier to defend. I believe with slightly less things to defend small stake holders in 0.0 would be able to defend a bit easier and the larger alliances would still be spread thin, though the empires would be slightly larger. This may encourage every system to have a station, but they will be destructible soon anyway right? |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
105
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:57:45 -
[1466] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems. So on top of renting systems they also use their numbers and power to keep moons from the little guys. Shhhhh.... don't tell any....
Oh who am I kidding! Please share this with EVERYONE! |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6610
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 02:08:28 -
[1467] - Quote
But Brave is already fighting PL and ...
are you taking their moons or just being farmed as "content" for them?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
863
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 03:17:42 -
[1468] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there.
So, what you are saying is that unless you are the size of Goonswarm, no alliance should hold more than one system? Because one system is already three different grids to defend (TCU, IHub, Station). Assume instead of a few interceptors attacking you, you get attacked by a decent sized alliance. With all your eggs in one basket, you are pretty much screwed.
So, how many people can one system support? About ten ratters, a couple of ice miners, and a couple of miners, assuming it is an awesome system. So tell me, how is this going to work?
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6613
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 03:36:36 -
[1469] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. So, what you are saying is that unless you are the size of Goonswarm, no alliance should hold more than one system? Because one system is already three different grids to defend (TCU, IHub, Station). Assume instead of a few interceptors attacking you, you get attacked by a decent sized alliance. With all your eggs in one basket, you are pretty much screwed. So, how many people can one system support? About ten ratters, a couple of ice miners, and a couple of miners, assuming it is an awesome system. So tell me, how is this going to work? You have the wrong 0.0 dream, I think.
It's supposed to be endless capture-the-flag (or sov laser the structure) and you actually live elsewhere...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 03:53:49 -
[1470] - Quote
Seeing how this works on sisi sooner rather than later would be good. Then we can see if trollceptors will indeed be a problem well before it hits TQ. My primary concern is the 250km range for the t2 entrosis link. If you don't want evasive doctrines dominating, this should be reduced to something like 50km. It might be prudent to have the entosis link also disrupt propulsion mods too.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |