Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:22:03 -
[61] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: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
Thanks for the superficial input, but people still should be aware of the fact that you are a high-sec denizen with no proven track record of having a previous residence in sovereign null. I wouldn't consider you as being qualified to be able to make remarks like the one above, because you have never lived in a sovereign null system as a resident. The fact that you cannot see the balance problems inherent in your continued rhetoric and speculative suggestions about the new proposal is showing.
And no, keep your "I'm an alt of a null-sec resident" smokescreen for yourself, nobody is going to be deceived by it. Unless you post on your mythical main that is supposedly a character with sovereign null background, I don't believe you'll possess any credibility per your wild rhetoric. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
884
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:26:12 -
[62] - Quote
Hilti Enaka wrote: Now if I went to bed one night woke up next morning to see my system was conquered. I should be able to do something to retake the system that doesn't involve hours/days of grinding. Potentially why can't it be as simple as flipping a switch?Especially in systems that are not utilized or have been "lived in". If the system is lived in and there is some sort of index I would expect a dynamic game play that reflected how "lived in" the system was and difficulty in trying to conquer it. This doesn't necessary have to be reflected in a HP grind type game play or one that has a countdown timer but one that means the attacker has to have a stand out reason why they need to take that specific system.
Station ping-pong is bad.
Also, I bet you would love it if you put in an IHub upgrade, after doing a freighter escort mission to get it put in, then it got destroyed that night while you were asleep. That would be great gameplay and really would encourage developing your space.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:36:29 -
[63] - 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.
No, because such scaling is senseless and stupid. Not all the sovereign null systems are the same quality, most of the sovereign null systems today with bad truesec cannot sustain a resident population. But of course, this is something you would have known if you weren't a high-sec resident with no sovereign null life experience. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are lying to everybody when you claim that you are an alt of a sovereign null resident.
Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6648
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:49:15 -
[64] - Quote
Alp Khan 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.
No, because such scaling is senseless and stupid. Not all the sovereign null systems are the same quality, most of the sovereign null systems today with bad truesec cannot sustain a resident population. But of course, this is something you would have known if you weren't a high-sec resident with no sovereign null life experience. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are lying to everybody when you claim that you are an alt of a sovereign null resident. Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known. Yeah the idea of holding alliances which are shells etc has always been known.
This and many other silly "why not just make the big alliances suffer by -THIS-" all run into this issue, but one day ccp will pick it up and run with it...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society Affirmative.
382
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 21:00:13 -
[65] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known. Keep in mind tho that Entosis effects are tied to the alliance. I can't predict how much that matters but I'm sure it's a factor - when defending but also when attacking. After reinforcement / during the control node phase you can't group fleets based on those split alliances and in fact have to be very careful _only_ players of the right alliance use their links. (Oh, can't wait to listen in on fleet comms after the change) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6648
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 21:30:10 -
[66] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Besides, any such scaling is easily bypassed by the defender if it's unfavorable for defense. Creating multiple alliances and distributing members between them is easy. But then again, if you had any idea of what you are babbling about and if you had prior experience in sovereign null, you would have known. Keep in mind tho that Entosis effects are tied to the alliance. I can't predict how much that matters but I'm sure it's a factor - when defending but also when attacking. After reinforcement / during the control node phase you can't group fleets based on those split alliances and in fact have to be very careful _only_ players of the right alliance use their links. (Oh, can't wait to listen in on fleet comms after the change) You're making it sound like some unsurmountable task, but it shouldn't be.
I'm inclined to think even willful self-deception won't be enough to bridge this gap
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
740
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 23:32:28 -
[67] - 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
What about systems that were just taken? After taking a system the indexes are 0, leaving the system extremely vulnerable. It takes time to build up those indexes, especially so for Strategic, requiring the space to be owned for X number of days, and industrial which is notoriously difficult to maintain.
That's something I'd like to see addressed by the advocates of the variable prime time idea.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
446
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 00:20:57 -
[68] - Quote
And how about allowing a scale of a minimum of 4hours to a maximum of 10 hours ( or more) for the timer
and maybe why not just put timer on corporation and not on alliance so you have to decide if you choose a Holding corp for the alliance to store the Sovs or each corp withing the alliance manage its own sov/timer
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 00:27:28 -
[69] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: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 What about systems that were just taken? After taking a system the indexes are 0, leaving the system extremely vulnerable. It takes time to build up those indexes, especially so for Strategic, requiring the space to be owned for X number of days, and industrial which is notoriously difficult to maintain. That's something I'd like to see addressed by the advocates of the variable prime time idea.
That's a very good point. I wouldn't mind making 0/0/0 space attackable all day but that is a very fair point for contested space, maybe you can include a kind of "cooldown" or change the way iHubs and their upgrades work to gain indices faster. Another idea would be to use the 6h prime time window as buffer for a week and then go for indices based timer after these 7d. Problem might be abuse by certain entities to cover lower used space by holding alliances.
Always hard to tweak - imo the current ihub mechanics need to be changed (including volume, price, upgrades), then it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities. |
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
283
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 00:48:01 -
[70] - Quote
Please do NOT tie vulnerability window size to infrastructure indices.
That SOUNDS convincing, because of occupancy & stuff, but: A small time window is only necessary/good for small defending entities. The larger an entity the easier it is to grind any number up to maximum. Result: more players -> less vulnerability. Example: 50 players must defend 6 hours per day. 400 players must defend 4 hours every day (of which probably 200 do not live in the main alliance TZ and 30 are Australians who will complain they can never help defending).
It really should be the other way round. More territory -> more vulnerability.
|
|
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 00:58:49 -
[71] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Please do NOT tie vulnerability window size to infrastructure indices.
That SOUNDS convincing, because of occupancy & stuff, but: A small time window is only necessary/good for small defending entities. The larger an entity the easier it is to grind any number up to maximum. Result: more players -> less vulnerability. Example: 50 players must defend 6 hours per day. 400 players must defend 4 hours every day (of which probably 200 do not live in the main alliance TZ and 30 are Australians who will complain they can never help defending).
It really should be the other way round. More territory -> more vulnerability.
That sounds convincing to you, but you'll have to be able to defeat the enemy on the field if you want to take actually used space from them. No sov change will change that particular problem, it'll only be easier to get your hands on the less loved space and edges of the bigger entities space.
50 or 500 or 5000 players, each entity should decide on their own what space they want to claim and utilize, then each stronghold constellation should be reasonably defendable and with a good short timer. The alliance size thing can be circumvented in so many ways, this won't solve your issue. You can put all pvp/entosis characters in a holding alliance, reducing the "pilot" weight of alts to blue sister alliances, yadda yadda. More territory can be split upon different alliances, I think that most alliances are probably considering keeping only the necessary systems and trimming the fat to reduce timers and vulnerability.
tldr: No matter what factor you tie it to, there'll be exploits and evasion methods used by 0.0 alliances, that's what we're all good at - looking at mechanics and trying to find loopholes and weaknesses to gain advantage. If you want to keep it simple, use the indices as general mark for reference - and you can always tweak how they work in general. |
Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 00:59:58 -
[72] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Nice to see CCP trolling people who want to give thorough detailed answers to the survey by including a 90 minute timeout and reset.
Thanks for that, an hour and a half down the pan.
id recommend people write out their answers to the questions prior to starting the survey.
Thank you for this. I managed to copy my responses out to notepad just before getting booted. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 01:27:47 -
[73] - Quote
Cae Lara wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Nice to see CCP trolling people who want to give thorough detailed answers to the survey by including a 90 minute timeout and reset.
Thanks for that, an hour and a half down the pan.
id recommend people write out their answers to the questions prior to starting the survey.
Thank you for this. I managed to copy my responses out to notepad just before getting booted.
no problem, they broke up the long answer questions a bit which helped but tbh one of those i wrote a pretty detailed account of what i thought about the mechanics and how it interconnects with other aspects of the game in a very non-optimal way, and it took me a fair while to draft it, go through and clarify it and remove errors and tidy up the grammar. |
ckinoutdahoe
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 01:28:53 -
[74] - Quote
"it'll be easier and simpler for smaller / newer entities."
This will NEVER happen.
Nothing will make it easier for smaller entities.......This is NOT WOW This is EVE it is suppose to be hard or it is not worth playing.
There are very large alliances that will make anything that is remotely smaller than 500 to 1k members even have a decent chance of owning space for long.
Now then:
If I plunk down 30 bill for a station egg plus billions more for upgrades then the station should be a huge pain in the ass to take. It should be ground down and not taken by some panzy timer for noobs to take down because they got the timers right.
You want my stations and my space then fight over it, burn it to the ground, but either way you will have to put time and effort into doing so........We have; We all have and have done so since as long as I can remember (2006 member of EVE)
Nothing in this game should be easy.....this is EVE.
If you want noobs in null then make null bigger....a lot bigger....then they can have space.....but they wont come anyway.... If they wanted to live in null they would be here already.
Those who do live here are members of corps that are always taking in new members or they can join a number of "rental" corps that charge a very small fee if any.
I know that CCP wants to rid EVE of rental space.....so now it will become extortion space to live in........same but different name.
It is very easy to come and live in null if you want to ...... I have seen time and again see CCP bend to the will of high sec and they still don't come to null space.
Timers in Eve for taking null space is useless. Time will tell as in any other experiment.
CCP did make mention some time back about making our own gates; maybe like a permanant type from x space to x space with a longer reach than the current JB's but maybe at far greater expense.
At least then you can reach the far reaches of eve without gates 100 jumps or 20 JB's. |
Ben Ishikela
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 01:36:57 -
[75] - Quote
answered. imho PrimeTime is a mandatory feature for the gamers who are working and/or have families. 4h is a very good time. come home, eat, play, go to bed, be fit on next day. But i understand the other guys, who think that there will be nothing to do for them. but this simply wrong/selfish. They can still attack alliances that are vulnerable at that time or go to hostile neighbors to disrupt their defence bonus. And that brings me to my proposal: how to disrupt someone, who docks up as soon as a "nonblue" shows in local, and have fun/provoke fights while doing it? 1st: set nullsec local to show count of players in system. also show only those that have set their standings blue to the viewer/ the owner. ---------- no explanation needed 2nd: introduce a new deployable ("listening post"). it is similar to an anchorable FWplex, that reduces the defence bonu , when completed (on def side, no running timer needed. just destroy. low hp. no gate). 5-30 minutes time idk.----- this is the provoking part. 3rd: the listening post provides local for owning(=attacking) party. 4th: truesec adapts: industrial actions benefit truesec and security actions do it no good. number of finished listeninposts contribute to reduction. Now you construct a metric around this. The best 1% systems get -1.0. the next 1% get -0.99 and so on. (dev can tweak here easily) --- this is to balance security/ratting around nullsec and spread it. Now it is more disruptible! 4.1: Do a lesser variant of this and put it to lowsec. So players can get comfortable with the gameplay in a safer environment and can start moving on. (also: LP to upgrade a FW system is bad. Please use the same contribution factors as in sov to determine its level.) 5th: If the effective System Level reaches zero it is Vulnerable regardless of owner's primetime. reduction should take a long enough time but also be fast enough . also, a system that is actively used should never reach zero. but disruption should hurt defence and economy. ---- now AUTZ can conquer land as well. wouldnt you, on the other side, like that? 6th: work out the bugs and flaws of 1-5th . though 1st is not so important.
Would you like something like that?
No more nerfing of percieved Overpowered Content!
It makes a game boring after too many iterations. Instead add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to fight the current Meta.
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
379
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 03:04:20 -
[76] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Eli Apol wrote: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 Thanks for the superficial input, but people still should be aware of the fact that you are a high-sec denizen with no proven track record of having a previous residence in sovereign null. I wouldn't consider you as being qualified to be able to make remarks like the one above, because you have never lived in a sovereign null system as a resident. The fact that you cannot see the balance problems inherent in your continued rhetoric and speculative suggestions about the new proposal is showing. And no, keep your "I'm an alt of a null-sec resident" smokescreen for yourself, nobody is going to be deceived by it. Unless you post on your mythical main that is supposedly a character with sovereign null background, I don't believe you'll possess any credibility per your wild rhetoric. Attacking the man instead of his points, something got you rattled there chief?
I lived in WHs longer than I lived in highsec, why else would I be a fan of removing local?
You goons have really got a hard on for my main, maybe I'll biomass Eli and join the CFC with him
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:00:29 -
[77] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Any system by which players from one timezone are told "you can only affect this territory at 4am, set your alarm clocks or don't bother" is failing those players fundamentally. There should always be SOMETHING to do to attack or defend space, even if the core vulnerability window remains there has to be some form of secondary objectives for out-of-timezone players to play a part. pretty much the nail on the head there. outside of the 4 hour window there's NO way to participate in sov warfare (and no, station services aren't participating in sov warfare)
Their answer to this is "well you can AFK camp the system to bring defenses down"
FUN FUN. |
Nina Lowel
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:11:02 -
[78] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:Tbh I don't think the fime zone thing is an issue. Previously you had no control over timers, even if they 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.
I've heard people suggest that making the links very expensive will ensure less trolling in those types of ships. Say 1 billion for the T1 and 2 billion for the T2. I think that would ensure that people aren't just loading up 50 ceptors and trolling a large alliance. Their current proposed cost of 25 million I think it was is nothing and people can easily afford to just troll sov if that is the case. If people want to take Sov, require them to commit to it and not just troll sov just to be annoyances with a simple 25 million isk module. |
Noriko Mai
2097
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:36:38 -
[79] - Quote
Nina Lowel wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:Tbh I don't think the fime zone thing is an issue. Previously you had no control over timers, even if they 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. I've heard people suggest that making the links very expensive will ensure less trolling in those types of ships. Say 1 billion for the T1 and 2 billion for the T2. I think that would ensure that people aren't just loading up 50 ceptors and trolling a large alliance. Their current proposed cost of 25 million I think it was is nothing and people can easily afford to just troll sov if that is the case. If people want to take Sov, require them to commit to it and not just troll sov just to be annoyances with a simple 25 million isk module. So we fix a stupid design be making the module stupidly expensive? This Entosis Magic Wand Capture The Flag idea is just crap.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2631
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:49:46 -
[80] - Quote
If we tie the window to the size of the organization holding it, it will be gamed to death, mininalliances or corps banding together as a coalition bypass all of the structure limitations.
If we tie the window size to indices . . . but not the way you think. What if the owning corp could set the window larger at the benefit of a higher indice for milittary (or one of their choosing). Welcome battle? Have a cookie. And a chance to make isk. Got a really big groups with full TZ coverage? the make it wide open and reap benefts as well as the downside.
Put an isk carrot on the window stick
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
|
Noriko Mai
2097
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 07:13:51 -
[81] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:If we tie the window to the size of the organization holding it, it will be gamed to death, mininalliances or corps banding together as a coalition bypass all of the structure limitations.
If we tie the window size to indices . . . but not the way you think. What if the owning corp could set the window larger at the benefit of a higher indice for milittary (or one of their choosing). Welcome battle? Have a cookie. And a chance to make isk. Got a really big groups with full TZ coverage? the make it wide open and reap benefts as well as the downside.
Put an isk carrot on the window stick
m Since you are one of the CSMs I voted for the last time, may I ask you a few questions?
Why was the new sov system designed without all the wonderfull feedback from a few years back? Why are smallholding and new structures (new POS system) not a fundamental part of it? Why is it just a very odd system that is not intuitive and doesn't seem natural? Why not screw sov and just let people live in null how they want and fight about dominance in a system and not about sovereignty?
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2666
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 07:32:39 -
[82] - Quote
My issue with the proposed timing system is that it dis-incentivizes alliances from integrating corporations and individuals across many time zones.
Today, we can set a TCU or an IHUB in one system for one time and in another system for another time. This creates an incentive for both the attacker and defender to cover many time zones and integrate players from around the world into their organization.
What that means in practice is, if I choose to go on a roam in my off-hours, I can roam, interact, and chat with people from across the world. I'm a U.S. dude and on my last late-night roam I flew with dudes in Australia, Germany, and Norway. There aren't many games where that happens, and it's something special.
These interactions are made possible because the corporation and alliance I am a part of has strong incentives to recruit people from across the globe, that play in all time zones.
I fear that with the new timer scheme, eve will move towards American Alliances only recruiting American dudes to fight in American prime timer. Or Australian alliances only recruiting Australian dudes to fight Australian prime time. I think that would be a loss for the game as a whole.
Even if that doesn't come to pass, one time zone will always be stuck doing one thing. My current alliance, for example, is predominantly European. Logically, our prime time will be set at a time most inconvenient for myself. In practice, this means I won't get to experience "defender" content, and when we attack an American Alliance, my euro buddies won't get to experience "attacker" content.
There are several things that can be done to mitigate this: 1) Increase the duration of "prime time." Four hours covers an awfully small amount of timezones. By covering a wider band of time zones, you allow a wider portion of the player base to experience both "attacker" and "defender" content.
2) Allow different prime times to be set for different systems or constellations, similar to the current sov system. If you don't want to allow alliances to set prime times for individual systems, consider allowing them to set prime times by constellation instead. |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2635
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 07:53:32 -
[83] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote: Since you are one of the CSMs I voted for the last time, may I ask you a few questions?
Why was the new sov system designed without all the wonderfull feedback from a few years back? Why are smallholding and new structures (new POS system) not a fundamental part of it? Why is it just a very odd system that is not intuitive and doesn't seem natural? Why not screw sov and just let people live in null how they want and fight about dominance in a system and not about sovereignty?
You never have to say you voted for me or not, I would answer either way.
I believe some of the goals set were based off of previous feedback. As I recall people wanted some change, now they have it. I prefer to skip the second question for now I actually find most of this fairly intuitive. The devil is in the details like entosis fit With no sov how would you improve on your own space? How would you set borders (we would set borders, you know that) m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Noriko Mai
2097
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 08:06:02 -
[84] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Noriko Mai wrote: Since you are one of the CSMs I voted for the last time, may I ask you a few questions?
Why was the new sov system designed without all the wonderfull feedback from a few years back? Why are smallholding and new structures (new POS system) not a fundamental part of it? Why is it just a very odd system that is not intuitive and doesn't seem natural? Why not screw sov and just let people live in null how they want and fight about dominance in a system and not about sovereignty?
You never have to say you voted for me or not, I would answer either way. I believe some of the goals set were based off of previous feedback. As I recall people wanted some change, now they have it. I prefer to skip the second question for now I actually find most of this fairly intuitive. The devil is in the details like entosis fit With no sov how would you improve on your own space? How would you set borders (we would set borders, you know that) m Thanks for the reply. Don't get me wrong. I'm not just just criticizing because it's something new and different. I just think that thinking about sov in this way is somehow flawed. Sov shouldn't be something you get by conquering some structures. It should be something you get by maintaining dominance over a system.
Nevertheles. Thanks for the reply and good luck with the current election.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3153
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 08:27:17 -
[85] - Quote
Nina Lowel wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Any system by which players from one timezone are told "you can only affect this territory at 4am, set your alarm clocks or don't bother" is failing those players fundamentally. There should always be SOMETHING to do to attack or defend space, even if the core vulnerability window remains there has to be some form of secondary objectives for out-of-timezone players to play a part. pretty much the nail on the head there. outside of the 4 hour window there's NO way to participate in sov warfare (and no, station services aren't participating in sov warfare) Their answer to this is "well you can AFK camp the system to bring defenses down" FUN FUN. And even that doesn't really work, since if an alliance has a given primetime that means the bulk of their PvE activities are likely to be taking place in that timezone as well. AFK camping a system during the hours when nobody is trying to use it in the first place is not going to do anything about the indices.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Thirdsin
Intergalactic Fight Club Gentlemen's.Club
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 08:32:18 -
[86] - Quote
While the vulnerability window is important to consider, the other important thing is the timer it comes out of reinforce. Give alliances power to change this, no matter when the sov is attacked. Shoot our tcu 8 hours off our prime? Doesn't matter, you still gotta show up during a primetime we chose.
So, this way even if the vulnerability window is a little longer or split into two times, defending alliance still dictates the next battle time.
So there, one more bandaid to this proposed sov system.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 08:43:04 -
[87] - Quote
Kossaw wrote:
- 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.
I fully support these ideas.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
337
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 12:02:27 -
[88] - Quote
My proposal is to add the defender ability to shift the vulnerability windows slightly per system basis. Say, for example +/-2 h. Because not all corps in the alliance will be of exactly same timezone even if they are roughly from the same geographical location. The +/-2 would allow one to more or less cover one continent.
Example: EU prime alliance picks alliance level vulnerability window 18-22. That would be its default. Maximum deviation from that for some systems would be 16-20 evetime (eastern europe) to 20-00 evetime (late EU / early US).
Alternatively allow shifting of timezone for a give alliance by +/- 30 min or +/-1 h per system compared to adjacent systems.
Example: First system alliance captures it has to pick a 4h window for it, say 18-22 evetime. When it takes adjacent system it has an option to "shift" that system either up or down time window wise - say, 17-21 evetime or 19-23 evetime. When it takes another system that is adjacent to the second system it can further shift, etc. If there would be multiple systems next to one captured system the "base" window against what the shift would be possible would be the average of these systems. Remote captured systems that are not adjacent to any of the existing systems would start at alliance "base" vulnerability window.
Usually smaller alliances that have managed to hold sov somehow tend to have one corporation living per system (if they are not "overpopulated) in my past experience.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 14:49:21 -
[89] - 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.
No.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Miner Hottie
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 15:12:19 -
[90] - Quote
Greygal gave an excellent explanation of why prime time based timer mechanics, set singularly at an alliance level are bad and will lead to timezone based regionalised alliances.
Likewise, PotatoOverdose identified something very important that I think risks being utterly destroyed with this mechanic and that is being able to play this game with people from all over the world. The social aspect of Eve is it's heart beat, its truly compelling feature and to be ghetto time zoned into the AUTZ and to only play with the birthday boy, Fawlty7, everyday and to exclude playing with some crazy German FC, tomorrow and then shoot the breeze on coms with US Marine living in Hawaii the next, because we are in the wrong timezone and are no longer required, would be a real shame. The community is what brings me back to this game. Forcing me to only play with a smaller group of people is exceptionally bad game design.
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |