Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Pyrope
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:33:43 -
[31] - Quote
I like the time zone mechanic. Folks already do something similar to try to time when things come out from RF. Might need some tweaking after release, but what doesn't? |
Duffyman
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:39:44 -
[32] - Quote
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Thanks for the survey.
Here would be my tweaks on the system:
- switch from an alliance-wide timer to a constellation based timer - up the 4h window to 6h - tie the prime time to indices - 5/5/5 gives the lowest timer of 6h, less "occupied" systems have a larger window (let's say up to 12h, for example - just a number though)
This way you could hit more alliances and unloved space is ripe for taking by different TZ alliances, strongholds have defensive boni and a tighter window.
What this guy said but if a system has 0 indices, give it a full 23h vulnerability. If it's not used, let someone has get a better shot at using it
|
Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
294
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:40:50 -
[33] - Quote
I still think the entire sov system needs to be revised. Focussing now on this timezone issue is drawing attention away from the fact sov and null could be so much better than it is now. With the current suggested changes I fear that null and sov will stay very similar to how it is now for a long time to come. |
Savant Alabel
Locus Signatures
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:44:37 -
[34] - Quote
I think that fixed 4-hour prime-time window isn't good idea.
I propose prime time window length to be related to systems/constellation indexes.
for rough example: * all 5 systems/constellations have 2-4-/any good number/ hour prime time. If players active in constellation then there must be a problem to enemy to throw them from their systems. *all 0 systems/constellations have 12 hour prime-time window to simplify conquering that system/constellation to players from other time zone * freshly conquered system/constellation will have 4 hour prime-time window to prevent reinforce spam and that window go wider or reduce in depends of ihub controlling alliance player's activity
|
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:53:44 -
[35] - Quote
In the original proposal, I dont like that the game of sov can only be initiated for 17% of the time the server is up. (4/23)*100 = 17%
Attackers need to be able to harass a system on the sov level whenever they want. Note that I said harass, not take a system.
Attackers need to be able to influence timers but need to be punished for doing so. They need to be punished in a way that greatly benefits the defenders. This benefit needs to be so great that the attackers need to take pause and question whether messing with the timer is actually worth it.
otherwise: option 2 is best. The attacker can harass, and initiate sov level combat, whenever they want. But, the actual fight is on the defenders time frame.
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:55:44 -
[36] - Quote
Tbh I don't think the fime zone thing is an kssue. Previously you had no control over timers, even if the came out at 3am.
It's entosis modules on frigs and cruisers. Really, this survey to me addresses sort if the least worrying part of the new sov mechanics. There are bigger fish to fry in terms of making the new sov mechanics viable than the time zone bit. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:56:43 -
[37] - Quote
Greygal wrote:
GǪbest currently is the system with the pocos. I set the reinforcement timer to come out at a time that is when we are most active (which happens to be Australian time zone). While the poco can be attacked at any time, the attackers (who 99% of the time are NOT Aussie TZ) have to alarm-clock it to complete attacking it when it comes out of reinforcement, which happens to be when we are able to field the best numbers to defend it. I also like that I can attack anyone's structures whenever I want to - which happens to be during the time zone most opponents are weakest at :) Sure, I'd likely have to alarm clock for when the structure exits reinforced mode to complete the attack, but at least I can attack when it is convenient for us.
This is a pretty good mechanic, but the only real change in the new system would be the attacker would have to alarm clock twice to attack a system.
Quote: The proposed new system GREATLY limits my offensive choices. As an Australian time zone player, right now, I can initiate an attack when I want to. With the new system, I can only initiate an attack when opponents are strongest. As the majority of null sec systems will have timers in the US/EU time zone window, this means that the possibility of my attacking other's sov structures is going to be extremely limited, as very few alliances will have their prime time windows set open during AU TZ. This means I will hardly ever have the opportunity to initiate an attack. Furthermore, it means that the entire AU TZ community will be limited to fighting over very few systems for ourselves, greatly reducing the possibility of owning sov space ourselves. In essence, the AU TZ will be essentially locked out of any meaningful sov battles, relegated to clean-up duty chasing after nodes left behind by the prior time zones, have virtually no possibility of initiating attacks and/or starting major battles, and have little to no strategic benefit to larger alliances like we do now.
This assumes that alliances keep things the way they are after the new Sov. WouldnGÇÖt it make sense for major alliances with good AU forces to splinter their AU corps into a coalition alliance, assigning them strategic and buffer systems to own so that they are immune during EU/US prime time? This would then become a whole new area for AU on AU conflict that would directly affect access to their coalitionGÇÖs Sov. I agree that a preferred mechanic might be to change the single time zone, but making it system by system could be gamed maybe if it were done at the constellation level since that is going to be more directly involved in Sov any way. Or build a meaningful coalition system to go along with the new Sov.
Quote: The one thing that is nice about the new system is someone can only attack us four hours a day. Of course, that is also a downside... that means less content for us, assuming we actually manage to get sov in a system.
For all those that play together in alliance, ie have similar time zone they will be protected while not logged in. And this means that the minority time zoners in the same alliance will not have to defend Sov while most of their alliance is offline. So for the off hour minority that are interested in defending sov, yes there is GÇ£lessGÇ¥ content for them.
Quote: The prime time mechanic is a major hindrance to our ability to take sov in a system during the AU TZ, as hardly any systems at all will be available to us to attack. The few systems that likely will be available for us to attack will likely be **** systems.
The upside is for just 2 alarm clocks you can contest anything you want, if you can bring the superior force. Then the tide turns in your favor since anyone wanting to contest you now has to do it during your prime time.
Quote: The hard limit of a four hour prime time that applies to ALL systems owned by an alliance, a window that does not vary with actual usage of a system, and cannot be changed on a system or constellation-wide basis. With this prime time mechanic, the entirety of any sov-holding alliance's space can only be attacked four hours a day, even the systems they are not using. The spread-out holdings of the big alliances right now will, eventually, contract in on themselves some with these changes, but not much, and not for a while, because they don't have to worry about being attacked except for four hours a day. Any small alliance attacking them during those four hours a day will be easily dealt with, and any big alliance attacking them will be good fights, good fun, or just simply won't happen because the other big alliances will be busy swatting down and picking on the little alliances that dared to mess with their systems.
I agree a constellation wide prime time seems more balanced for large and diverse alliances. For smaller alliances that already play at the same time it wonGÇÖt matter so may as well make it better for all. I support constellation prime time. I donGÇÖt have your same bleak outlook on this new mechanic not changing the sov map in Null. I am more optimistic that the under used, vacant, and renter systems will slowly fall away from the major alliances control and new alliances will either spring up or move in to these areas.
Keep in mind EvE is about players. This new system is designed to have players engaged with other players not engaged with sov structures. By being forced to go against your enemies prime time you must show that you have the right to take it from them with superiority. Being able to attack undefended structures anytime you want should not be reason to move away from a design that will encourage player engagements during their normal play times. |
Razesdarked
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 16:57:01 -
[38] - Quote
I think the Idea about fixed time window for taking sov is a good Idea. From the perspective of one that don't have excessive amount of gametime. It can make it much easier for me to allocate game time.
How would this system play out if the indices of the system(military, strategic, industry) decided how long the window was? If the system is 5/5/5, not only would you spend one hour + to take sov, but the window was 4 hours. If indicies are mid ish, its double that. And at 0/0/0 it could be somewhere from 12 to 24 hours.
To everyone that sais that you can't do **** if you're out of timezone with this system; Camping and kliling inhabitants of a system will reduce the activity of a system. Which means your alliance will have to spend less time when they roll around their entosis link. If no one can rat or mine without being dropped, then that shortens entosis link timer yea? So even if you're not playing during prime time, your contribution surely helps.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
549
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:01:07 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys. Sorry about the timeouts. We've talked to the questionpro people and it turns out that the survey will timeout if it is left for more than 90 minutes on one page. We're trying to see if we can get that extended, but in the meantime we split the long-form answers into three pages which should hopefully help.
thank you for that Fozzie, its much appreciated :) |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:01:11 -
[40] - Quote
Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is:
- Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes
- Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:05:12 -
[41] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is: - Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes
- Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.
wouldn't work
sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done
this system would simply encourage splitting your PvE alts into a holding corporation (or renting out your sov systems) to grind the indices while keeping your PvP pilots in the actual sov holding corporation to keep numbers down |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:07:00 -
[42] - Quote
Duffyman wrote:Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:Thanks for the survey.
Here would be my tweaks on the system:
- switch from an alliance-wide timer to a constellation based timer - up the 4h window to 6h - tie the prime time to indices - 5/5/5 gives the lowest timer of 6h, less "occupied" systems have a larger window (let's say up to 12h, for example - just a number though)
This way you could hit more alliances and unloved space is ripe for taking by different TZ alliances, strongholds have defensive boni and a tighter window. What this guy said but if a system has 0 indices, give it a full 23h vulnerability. If it's not used, let someone has get a better shot at using it -I like the constellation based setting. -4 hours would still be a good baseline. The idea, as I see it, is to encourage players vs players not players vs other players structures. - I don't see many 5/5/5 systems, are there any right now? The baseline should be achievable. Something that equates to 2/2/3 in indices should get you to your 4 hours window. Then lower indices in system could expand the time window by 2 hours per point . So max would be 4 + (2 * 7) = 18 hour window. With the caveat that a newly captured system started with the base 4 hours for a reasonable amount of time, allowing the new owners time to build up the indices. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:08:46 -
[43] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is: - Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes
- Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.
wouldn't work sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done That could be easily changed since they're revamping the system - only allow members of the local sov holding group affect the indices = prevents dummy alliances/holding alliances etc.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:18:54 -
[44] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is: - Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes
- Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.
This would also penalize a large group that plays in the same timezone. |
Borachon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:19:27 -
[45] - Quote
Duffyman wrote: What this guy said but if a system has 0 indices, give it a full 23h vulnerability. If it's not used, let someone has get a better shot at using it
0 indicies doesn't necessarily correspond to unused, though. It could just mean no ihub, either because it got destroyed or you haven't arranged the freighter trip to drop one yet.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
690
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:19:38 -
[46] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is: - Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes
- Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.
wouldn't work sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done That could be easily changed since they're revamping the system - only allow members of the local sov holding group affect the indices = prevents dummy alliances/holding alliances etc. you'd think that but their recalcitrance to do ANYTHING to change the god-awful way you have to grind out industrial index gives me pause
i get the whole "manufacturing/research lets you spend your way into system security" thing (though i don't really agree) but not letting things like PI, hack/salvage sites, and pos reactors, all of which require you to risk the destruction of ships and/or assets to perform to affect industrial index seems like a mistake to me and perhaps speaks of a physical difficulty rather than one based on opinion |
OJ Simpson
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:25:56 -
[47] - Quote
"CCP Fozzie" wrote: They prevent players from losing their stuff while they are unavoidably away from the game (work, sleep, etc). Nobody should feel the need to play the game 24/7 in order to compete.
They encourage players to show up at the same place at the same time, facilitating multiplayer gameplay. Playing with and outplaying other human beings is the core of EVE, and putting players in contact with each other is a big part of that. If people can fight over an asset without ever coming into contact with each other, we've lost something very valuable.
1. And it prevents alliances seeking to take sovereignty from doing so while unavoidably away from the game (work, sleep, etc). I agree, nobody should feel the need to play the game 24/7 in order to compete.
2. Good point, the current system definitely doesn't cause large fleet fights... right? Right? If you think about it, the current system actually provides more "around-the-clock" vulnerability for content creation, arguably "facilitating multiplayer gameplay" more so than the proposed changes could hope to achieve.
Can you please post an actual reason you've decided these changes are worthwhile? |
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:29:22 -
[48] - Quote
Generally, my feeling on timers is that they are a penalty and force you to play the game at specific times.
If i had my way I would have no timers, this obviously is for taking systems and stations. I could not care less if during times of when you are asleep, at work or on vacation you lose a system or two. The point is you lost them because you couldn't defend them, some of the best memories i have of Eve was when people needed to defend their assets you would get an instant fight. what happens with timers is a lot of blue balling and generally bat phoning adding to the stagnation of eve.
If you want a null sec full of conflict and intense battles get rid of timers and the huge HP structure grinding and replace it with more team work based activities, i'm not saying that if you want to take a system you need a freighter in your fleet with your own flag I'd love to see small entities able to take systems because of some sort of "usability" status that denotes a system as conquerable.
For other things such as POS or POCO's, i think the mechanic works fine since these things tend to be owned more by individuals and not alliances. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:39:55 -
[49] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:i get the whole "manufacturing/research lets you spend your way into system security" thing (though i don't really agree) but not letting things like PI, hack/salvage sites, and pos reactors, all of which require you to risk the destruction of ships and/or assets to perform to affect industrial index seems like a mistake to me and perhaps speaks of a physical difficulty rather than one based on opinion I think PI and POS reactions, manufacture and research should be weighted very low as there's a low threat level whilst doing them - data/relic sites and mining should all have suitably high effects on the indices as you're actually undocked in space risking something. Also the actual scale of work required to increase the indices should be scaled down.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:47:11 -
[50] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:i get the whole "manufacturing/research lets you spend your way into system security" thing (though i don't really agree) but not letting things like PI, hack/salvage sites, and pos reactors, all of which require you to risk the destruction of ships and/or assets to perform to affect industrial index seems like a mistake to me and perhaps speaks of a physical difficulty rather than one based on opinion I think PI and POS reactions, manufacture and research should be weighted very low as there's a low threat level whilst doing them - data/relic sites and mining should all have suitably high effects on the indices as you're actually undocked in space risking something. Also the actual scale of work required to increase the indices should be scaled down. I would have to agree that tying indices to Sov defense warrants a look at the mechanic as a whole to make sure it is a reasonable metric for smaller but active alliances. And if that makes it easier for the larger alliances to improve their indices that is okay because it makes their space more valuable to them and able to support a larger number of players all at the same time. |
|
Ryuuji Ibarazaki
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:49:41 -
[51] - Quote
I'm new to Null and Sov so won't presume to know what is best.
However, I do worry that the proposed 4 hour primetime window will turn groups of space-nerds less international and more timezone based; and I'd miss hanging out with my Euro and Aus bros.
Will the Sov changes cause that to happen? I'm not sure, but that's my feedback.
|
Noriko Mai
2097
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:51:28 -
[52] - Quote
I'm looking forward to some kind of smallholding system for years now. This sov rework is the opportunity to make it happen.
Why is system ownership all-in? Why can't many corps/alliances hold/live in the same system. The smallholding idea was about making pockets or some other kind of "my own space". So a variable amount of corps/alliances can go in a system, claim thier part and deploy thier structures to have hangars, fitting services, production facilities, defense of some kind and/or even a mini-market.
I really don't get the idea behind "ownership". Why can't the system be inhabited by many organizations. Putting a flag somewhere means basically nothing. If Alliance X can drive everyone out of the system, the Sov map can show "System AB-123: Alliance X", if not, it shows "System AB-123: Alliance X, Alliance Y, Corp A, Corp B, etc.".
Imho the current and new system have the big flaw that they isolate people because everyone relys on the system owner. It only encurages to be in that system if it's timer time and someone is attacking. Nobody can really use it if the don't go through the old/new grinding mechanics. And the new mechanics feel really artificial.
Moving away from this owner centric design could lead to a vast amount of interesting gameplay. Corp A goes somewhere and put's thier little pocket beackon/whatever somewhere in space and starts to build thier "base". If the "owner" doesn't drive them out they can just move on and live there (contributing to the system index, generating content for the locals, etc..). If another corp does the same and they want to live peacefully together, they can. This would be a much more flexible and liberating system, not relying on some overlord to be pleased all the time.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:03:55 -
[53] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Primetime should scale with how large the alliance holding it is: - Large alliances have more people covering more TZs = easier to cover longer primetimes
- Large alliances have more PvErs available to raise the indices (i.e. they can be mining/running anoms 23 hours a day rather than 8) = easier to defend because of higher indices even with the same density of users over time.
wouldn't work sov indices don't take into account whom is doing the pve activity, just that it is being done this system would simply encourage splitting your PvE alts into a holding corporation (or renting out your sov systems) to grind the indices while keeping your PvP pilots in the actual sov holding corporation to keep numbers down
Or you take it the other way and scale the "protection time" to the amount of systems you own.
e.g. 23.5 hours protection with no system ownership, and -30 minutes for every system owned after that. if i own 4 systems that equals 120 minutes of vulnerability but each system Vulnerability timer can be affected by how "live in" the system is. |
Ypsilas Suonen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:27:36 -
[54] - Quote
As someone who has never experienced sovereignty, but finds the proposed changes an encouragement to explore the possibility of life in null, I would like to echo my answer to the final question in the survey.
Please reevaluate opportunity cost as part of the Sov update. There is nothing to entice newer, smaller alliances to try to capture systems (which appears to be one of your goals) if the income is abysmal relative to highsec missions, etc. Payout can scale with activity indeces, but you need to provide more carrot to make the risk to palatable to smaller outfits. |
The Newface
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:30:05 -
[55] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote: BURN Stront. Something that is heavy , and hard to move. All my words NO. Stront is a painful mechanic as it exists today with POS. The burden on logistics groups to manage structures will be even worse if this mechanic is introduced to sov gameplay. We need a simplified mechanic that requires less individual structure micro-management, that can be done REMOTELY. Having to fly to every individual structure to set a timer, and babysit it is not good gameplay.
No er dont, EVE is not supposed to be easy. What we need to do is to make sure logistics work again (remove jump fatigue)
If we do that organized alliances/corps can hold more sov then the un-organized. Creating/maintaining a meta game.
If eveything can be done by 1 person in 5 minutes structures will be useless and we can all go play battlefield instead |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
332
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 18:51:04 -
[56] - Quote
I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 19:03:56 -
[57] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size. What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
376
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 19:08:31 -
[58] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size. What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted. I like this in theory but there has to be a tangible benefit to making yourself open like that
Local only during primetime .oO
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
127
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 19:27:45 -
[59] - Quote
The problem wiht the current sov mechanics is the "structure grind". You need supercapitals to grind massive numbers of hitpoints to reinforce structures. If you're "lucky" enough ( heh ) to be in an alliance with large numbers of supers then you get to sit in your space coffin for 20 mins shooting at a station while nothing interesting happens. If you dont have supercaps, you're going to be sitting there a hell of a lot longer. This isnt good gameplay - BUT - the existing timer system isnt that bad. Fights do occur in a window specified by the defender. If the defender is active and shows up you get a fight. Great. Otherwise, you sit in your space coffin and shoot the next cycle for another 20 minutes a couple of days later. Anybody can start a fight at any time.
The Entosis link fixes the "structure grind" problem ... No more space coffins. Obviously, thats quite disappointing for those of us stuck in a space coffin, but its better gameplay overall. However, it breaks the current Timer system. And the entosis link is potentially too powerfull when fitted to a single kitey interceptor.
- The attacker should be able to start the first reinforcement timer at any time or in a much bigger window. This could also be done by allowing the attacker to shoot a structure into shield timer at any time the same way its done now
- The defender still gets to set the reinforcement window for the capture events.
- It should be harder to start the first reinforecment timer. You should need more than a single troll ceptor sitting in grid for a few minutes. If the Entosis link is intended to measure who "controls the grid" then a single BS sitting unopposed beside the structure is exerting control - a kiting interceptor 200km away is not.
WTB : An image in my signature
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
691
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 19:35:06 -
[60] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:I fully support this proposal, though would also like the vulnerability windows to scale with alliance size. What if an alliance could set their prime time window as big as they wanted, just with a minimum of 4 hours? Larger alliances that want action or want to cover multiple time zones could set it to 8 or 12 or 23 if they wanted. this is a pretty good idea as long as the expectation that setting it above the minimum is being willfully insane and that all balance should pivot around the fulcrum of a 4h window (and have that be the default)
i don't think it necessarily needs a carrot, and since ccp is incapable of viewing any activity in nullsec other than ratting as "making money" then i suspect they will be recalcitrant to increase the carrot in the form of a multiplier on bounties or some such |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |