Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
178
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 09:14:21 -
[151] - Quote
Worrff wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Tex Steele wrote:First, I think that CCP will ram the change they want down our throats, regardless of what we say here or any feedback we provide. I have not seen them listen to us yet in almost 5 years. That could not be further from the truth. CCP have been listening to the players more now than ever. And making decisions based on our feedback and ideas. Why would you say such a thing that is an obvious lie? You are clearly new here. CCP are keen to give the APPEARANCE that they listen to the players, when in fact they do not. Countless times, they have asked for feedback, had 100 page threads on the test server forum, only to ignore it all and do what they want anyway. This is frequently followed by months of GÇ£iterationsGÇ¥ to get the new GÇ£featureGÇ¥ in a half useable state, at which point, they just ignore the rest of the problems with it and move on to breaking something else. So, while its really cute that you think they listen, you couldnGÇÖt actually be further from the truth. CCP asked for feedback on the Entosis Link and I suggested this:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Just reposting what seems to have gained some traction in case it was lost in the pages:
In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel:
I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things.
As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors *hint hint*, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now?
What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups.
What are your thoughts? Then when CCP posted another thread with the revised Entosis Link, it included them using 1 Strontium as per my suggestion. You can see this here:
CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 Entosis Link:
Requires Infomorph Psychology 1 +250,000 mass when online 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range 10 PWG, 1 CPU 50 Capacitor per cycle (0.1666 cap/s) Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
T2 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 4 +1,000,000 mass when online 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range 100 PWG, 10 CPU 500 Capacitor per cycle (4.166 cap/s) Consumes 1 Stront per cycle And to think this is just from my feedback along with what I took from others in the thread. I know this really deflates your whole argument that CCP never listens, but perhaps you should calm it down with the rabble. Who knows, maybe even contribute in these feedback threads in a constructive way instead spreading all kinds of doom and gloom.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Dave Stark
7469
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 13:12:27 -
[152] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:It does seem unfair that the AUTZ always gets the downtime.
Can we have a 25 hour clock on downtimes please.
Now there's a thought - could we make the invulnerability timers work on a 25 hour clock as well - If you occupy a system adjusting the settings would be a simple task ... of course if your not in the system and don't change them you could run into trouble.
having some poor guy run around every week adjusting timers is fun for nobody, especially the guy who has to go around and change a bunch of timers.
it serves no purpose than to annoy people and won't promote any content what so ever. |
Shaklu
Relentless Terrorism Already Disbanded
42
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 18:57:53 -
[153] - Quote
I like the idea of prime time vulnerability.. it would allow people to not have to worry so much if they are a smaller corp about keeping things secure while you sleep. I do see some issues with it, though. If someone wants to take your space but their prime time is much different than yours, it will be super difficult. So why not use war decs to fix that?
If you want to attack someone, even in null security, then you declare war on them. It starts a 24 hour timer, and alerts the defender that war is coming. Once war is declared both the defenders and offenders structures are vulnerable during each other's prime times. Defending corps can still add people to their corp, but the offenders can't (making it so you don't just have alts declare war and then bring in a ton of people to blap it all).
This would mean that the defenders can take out the attackers structures and defend their own during prime time, while the attackers can also take a shot during their time slot.
Not a perfect solution, but sure beats structure grinding and stront timers etc.
It would be cool to see who is actually fighting whom as far as the big alliances go. Perhaps you could make it so neither corp could add members unless the war was mutual. The vulnerability would only be effective for people in the offending corporation, otherwise it would remain safe from neutral parties except during the normal prime time slot of the defender. |
Hicksimus
Xion Limited Resonance.
582
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:37:05 -
[154] - Quote
I can't be bothered to read about this but I'd want to only see active systems have an invulnerability period. I know flying around with Razor that there were only 5 systems that could be called active and those should be VERY hard to take but they had a pile of systems where the only activity was the occasional patrolling prober(blue closer to active systems, usually neutral further away) and that space should be able to be flipped EXTREMELY quickly.
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3211
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:04:11 -
[155] - Quote
I mentioned this in my survey response but I'll repeat it again here - one thing that POS warfare provided but is missing from both the current and proposed future of sovereignty is the ability to affect the timing of a decisive battle through strontium management and "kiting" of POS shots to delay the reinforcement timer. Warfare is much more interesting when it includes the possibilities for misdirection and human error, and simply allowing the defender to pick a fixed time and have their structures invulnerable for the remaining 20 hours is disappointingly limited.
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.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
284
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 13:56:48 -
[156] - Quote
Hicksimus wrote:I can't be bothered to read about this but I'd want to only see active systems have an invulnerability period. I know flying around with Razor that there were only 5 systems that could be called active and those should be VERY hard to take but they had a pile of systems where the only activity was the occasional patrolling prober(blue closer to active systems, usually neutral further away) and that space should be able to be flipped EXTREMELY quickly.
Agreed. I'm very excited for the new sov changes. I bet CCP will be watching closely to see that those systems that should be flipped quickly do in fact flip. Or, the ultimate goal of forcing inhabitants to change, and actively defend their space on the new meta.
CCP 1 Weaponized boredom 0 |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
918
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 14:14:38 -
[157] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Hicksimus wrote:I can't be bothered to read about this but I'd want to only see active systems have an invulnerability period. I know flying around with Razor that there were only 5 systems that could be called active and those should be VERY hard to take but they had a pile of systems where the only activity was the occasional patrolling prober(blue closer to active systems, usually neutral further away) and that space should be able to be flipped EXTREMELY quickly. Agreed. I'm very excited for the new sov changes. I bet CCP will be watching closely to see that those systems that should be flipped quickly do in fact flip. Or, the ultimate goal of forcing inhabitants to change, and actively defend their space on the new meta. CCP 1 Weaponized boredom 0
Perhaps the window of opportunity should shrink with activity metrics?
So the vulnerability window of a window starts at 12 hours but if you have active pilots in the system it goes down to 4 hours.
Not today spaghetti.
|
Veronica Vampire
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 10:44:26 -
[158] - Quote
Lokitoki81 wrote:Move russians and aussies to chinese servers.
problem solved lol. |
Callduron
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
621
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 18:21:37 -
[159] - Quote
Add me to the attack any time, defend in the window camp.
It's potentially very boring if the neighbours simply don't have windows in my time. I can mess with their station service, gate camp or cloaky camp but that's not why people are drawn to sov. In a big multi-timezone alliance like BRAVE it's possible that both the people we're attacking and our own defensive timers are not available to our EU and AU minorities.
That's pretty dull game play.
I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/
I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
|
Strange Shadow
Hedion University Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 04:35:12 -
[160] - Quote
Simple proposition:
Make Enthosis Link use different kinds of ammo. Not just stront, but something else (something from PI maybe?)
Ammo type 1: Work as it is now (contest structure), can only be used when structure is in vulnerable TZ.
Ammo type 2: Adjust vulnerability time. Can be used any time, on any structure. Will adjust vulnerability window for the next day to the current time, so attacker can try to capture things in his own TZ tomorrow. COUNTER: defender can use same ammo type on same structure again, anytime, to restore vulnerability TZ back to his own. |
|
Skalie
417th Cavalry
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 17:42:21 -
[161] - Quote
Just a thought, sorry if it has already been suggested.
To allow for multi-time zone Alliances, could you not provide a choice for each SOV corp, of splitting your vulnerability windows?
So...
One 4 hour window = 4 hours to defend/ attack or 2 x 2.5 windows = 5 hours to Defend/Attack or 3 x 2 hour windows. = 6 Hours to defend Attack
It is a choice for each SOV owner.
or something like that.
Either combined with above or stand alone ...
If some one in the SOV owners Corp use an entosis outside of their chosen defending hours, Their SOV also becomes vulnerable to attack and for 15- 30 mins after the attack, better still their corps become War dec'd for 15-30 mins.
The second one might stop Griefing others outside your Alliance Defence Time Window without consequences.
Maybe it is a silly idea, but hey if you don't put it out there..... |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
697
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:39:30 -
[162] - Quote
Lokitoki81 wrote:Move russians and aussies to chinese servers.
problem solved A lot of problems fixed.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 09:54:52 -
[163] - Quote
Terra Chrall 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.
This would also penalize a large group that plays in the same timezone.
So there could be bonus to defense in the border regions of the larger timewindow.
The reasoning: There should be a compensation for being large and still only be in one timezone: In your primetime, you will be much stronger than another alliance of equal size that consists of several timezones' players. You already have an advantage by concentrating your pilots into the primetime / vulnerable time. Being vulnerable also off-primetime, but at better odds than in your primetime, puts you on equal terms with the many-timezone alliance again.
Also: SOMEONE from the large alliance in their prime time will be able to show up off-time. Less people than during primetime, probably. So the further away the timer exits from prime time, the easier those fewer defenders' job should get.
Larger windows by alliance size, with better defense bonuses off-primetime: Like. |
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 09:59:22 -
[164] - Quote
OJ Simpson wrote:"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 ever hope to. Can you please post an actual reason you've decided these changes are worthwhile?
They are changing the core of the sov-system, but not the core of the timer-system: Defender can set the time when "the thing" happens.
But they are asking if the timer system can be improved. |
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
16
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 10:29:44 -
[165] - Quote
Now, after parsing through all of this, I like this one best: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5585716#post5585716
TLDR: Your prime constellation is in your selected prime time. All other constellations have to be, each one, in a time window you have not selected so far. --> The larger your area grows, the more you must beprepared to defend in other times.
Also, this has not been mentioned so far:
24hr - window on WEEKENDS \o/ |
P3ps1 Max
Hedion University Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 16:31:43 -
[166] - Quote
Maybe instead of making it so complex with time zones. Why doesn't EVE join the current mobile app era and provide something like "mobile alerts" for players in Null? Obviously the mobile app would be a little deeper in content and could also include checking mail, market information, etc etc.
Cheers
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6715
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 02:59:21 -
[167] - Quote
We already use apps allowing our leaders to ping us
So that means magically timezone issues are fixed? Hardly
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Crimson Crowe
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 18:07:45 -
[168] - Quote
I don't know if this has been suggested or not but I say tie the window to level of military or industrial index that is maintained in the system and just take the highest of the two.
0 = 24 hours 1 = 20 hours 2 = 16 hours 3 = 12 hours 4 = 8 hours 5 = 4 hours
This ties the window directly to the usage of the system and even gives attackers a chance to take advantage of a 24 hour window. If the system doesn't get used it stays at 24 hours.
I like this as a compromise because the work put into a system will help defend it where the absence of work leaves it vulnerable.
With the changes to Ihub and upgrade sizes I think this fits perfectly in line with the route CCP is currently taking. |
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 20:28:52 -
[169] - Quote
Sorry, I didn't really like your survey...
Hmm, how would some sort of an alliance 'aggression timer' work (starting to feel like a clock maker here; too many timers).
Alliances each pick their own four hour windows... easy, simple
An alliance that attacks another alliance's sovereignty (even one ship; obviously attacking assests in someone else's sovereignty is something completely different than actually attacking that sovereignty) starts the timer, attackers' window opens to a twelve hour window (four hours added to each side; ie. 4-8 becomes 12-12) for the first day, 8 on the second, 4 on the third if the time is allowed to count down with no further aggression on the part of the attacking alliance past the initial start. Each new act of aggression past the first day resets the timer to twelve. (or whatever time increment that best suits this idea; could be for a week period instead. I dunno.)
A defending alliance obviously doesn't create aggression (until they go out and attack someone's sovereignty) so the window stays at four even when physically defending their own.
1. All your 'battle' gameplay isn't a... hmmm, the right word? "tube or pipeline" but sort of like a pulse (easier workload on the program without the possibility of a jam, intentional or not; also becomes more apparent when 0.0 markets become hmm, better... right now this presents a possible high and low between periods of war.)
2. Aggressive alliances are given the option to increase window as a mechanic but also become more vunerable to the world (a twelve hour window opens them up to attacks, coordinated or not from various timeszone alliances in a single day.)
3. Defensive alliances are left with a certain amount of institutional security (remember some alliances are just part time players too) Key: The options and abilities of an alliance are spread over a few days...
Just a few ideas for you... (give it life, don't just feed it through a tube.
Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne
Déan gáire...Tiocfaidh ár lá
|
Trajan Unknown
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 09:05:03 -
[170] - Quote
I am not involved into the whole SoV thingy anymore and SoV grinding was a pain for sure but it more so because there was little to no benefit from doing it. Nice, we-¦ve grinded a system with a station and now? It would be nice to see a mix of old and new SoV. So you could actually build some kind of "Empire" that means something instead of just holding X systems. Make it easy to attack stretched out "Empires" and hard to crack some well defended pockets. That together with giving a benefit to actually hold the system sounds pretty nice to me. To keep the "defense" of large clusters up have a high resource cost of whatever fits to make it actually hard to hold huge amounts of space without a functional infrastructure. That way smaller groups can harass the supply lines to may get a chance to increase the costs of holding a cluster/system to an amount where the defenders have to react or simply "drop" it. It-¦s all theory but it might give mercs/pirates a whole new way of playing, give all TZ-¦s something to do, prevent power blocks from holding space without problem and yet giving them a reason to actually work on holding big clusters of space. Combined with these increasing timers when not "fueled" seems to be a start. Furthermore, when High-Sec and zero-zero get connected to a point where you have to import/export certain resources to maintain your production it would connect all three sec regions together instead of more or less isolating them. Right now it-¦s more like "produce/farm some stuff in zero-zero and sell it in Jita while buying ships and modules to bring on the way back." Last but not least I think it would be a good idea when smaller groups can maintain their their SoV without too much resources from High-Sec to not cripple them. But when you want to maintain a bigger empire there should be some need to actually interact with the rest of New Eden instead of isolating yourself and keep it closed.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6717
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 01:49:26 -
[171] - Quote
Trajan Unknown wrote:Last but not least I think it would be a good idea when smaller groups can maintain their their SoV without too much resources from High-Sec to not cripple them. But when you want to maintain a bigger empire there should be some need to actually interact with the rest of New Eden instead of isolating yourself and keep it closed.
So what exactly are these smaller groups doing that is protected but somehow magically isn't possible for any group that's larger?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Felix Judge
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
17
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 14:58:30 -
[172] - Quote
P3ps1 Max wrote:Maybe instead of making it so complex with time zones. Why doesn't EVE join the current mobile app era and provide something like "mobile alerts" for players in Null? [...] Splendid. And then what? Do we tell our bosses, clients, patients, co-workers and what-not that we will be away for a few hours and return once we have defended our pixel empires?
Nullers already have these instant alerts.
This is about when players are available to show up, not when they are informed. |
Tsukinosuke
Id Est The Volition Cult
30
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 12:56:55 -
[173] - Quote
Crimson Crowe wrote:I don't know if this has been suggested or not but I say tie the window to level of military or industrial index that is maintained in the system and just take the highest of the two.
0 = 24 hours 1 = 20 hours 2 = 16 hours 3 = 12 hours 4 = 8 hours 5 = 4 hours
This ties the window directly to the usage of the system and even gives attackers a chance to take advantage of a 24 hour window. If the system doesn't get used it stays at 24 hours.
I like this as a compromise because the work put into a system will help defend it where the absence of work leaves it vulnerable.
With the changes to Ihub and upgrade sizes I think this fits perfectly in line with the route CCP is currently taking.
My thoughts on timezones:
1) The alliance sets the timezone they are comfortable with
2) The time in systems owned by that alliance should be altered to reflect that alliance's timezone
i like this idea, it will force ppl to create living null systems, hopefully. and i want to add mirrored Windows. instead of 4 hours(1300 - 1800 for example), mirrored time periods of 2 hours (for example 1am - 3am / 1pm - 3pm). we all know this new system, add a content of marauding and pillaging to new eden.
btw, what happens if the alliance chooses a time period which it contains DT?
[u]anti-antagonist[/u]-á "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
|
45thtiger 0109
AL3XAND3R.
151
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 23:37:08 -
[174] - Quote
Lokitoki81 wrote:Move russians and aussies to chinese servers.
problem solved
No No and No do not move aussies and NZ to the chinese servers
**You Have to take the good with the bad
and the bad with the good.
Welcome to EvE OnLiNe**
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |