Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1144
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 23:08:10 -
[151] - Quote
The Banking Clan will sign your treaty.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 23:27:14 -
[152] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.
You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right? You missed the part where I lived for years in Eve's shittiest corner of Sov space (Cobalt Edge) as part of IRC. But don't let your failure to check character history stop you from making baseless accusations.
Only thing better than old sckool irc was classic frege. Man do i miss those days
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 23:36:55 -
[153] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:MeBiatch wrote: Hmm well caprure annoms size couod be based on tge occupancy index. So a system like you suggested might only end up needing medium sized e link to capture. But a systemthat has full occupancy index would go all tge way to capital elinks.
Now, it does make sense. Let the people who want those V V V core system entertain their Capital Phantasies, allowing the majority of Eve engage in competitive, ruthless and unpredictable* PvP in the mid-tier developed... Shall we say - lucrative pieces of pie? Yes. *As opposed to, "Will they escalate with 1 mouse click?" FLOWCHART GOES -> Yes/No -> No -> Team 1 Wins. \o/P.S. When do we deploy to NOL-? Ohhhhh... is it the wrong timeline? Actors may change, but the concept of a full circle stays the same. You know who you are.
So does this mean you support mu concept?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
584
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:04:14 -
[154] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.
You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right? You missed the part where I lived for years in Eve's shittiest corner of Sov space (Cobalt Edge) as part of IRC. But don't let your failure to check character history stop you from making baseless accusations.
well i apologise that i didnt recognise that you spent from the 19th of feb 2011 to the 10th of september 2012 in sov nullsec space. if you consider that time period to be years (plural) then i guess you can when rounding the time up to 1 significant figure. but from my understanding you've spent far more time out of sov nullsec then inside it, especially in terms of your most recent time in the game.
if you feel your views are more applicable because you view your time in IRC was akin to being enslaved in the worst part of nullsec and doing such penance means you feel entitled that your view is worth more than others dealing with sov nullsec currently then theres nothing much i can say to change how you feel, but i hope some objectivity might give you perspective.
Consider that although dominion sov hasn't changed much at all in the years it had been introduced, the strategic game and the tools and techniques both mechanically in game and psychologically outside and running parallel to the game have advanced tenfold, it is essential to consider all aspects of these when thinking critically about the mechanics of the entosis links. Striking a balance so that it is challenging for both sides of equal mass skill and resources is i believe where ccp wants it to be.
basically please try to be objective if you want to add to the debate, cause saying things like "i dont care, let all sov nullsec burn" is not helpful in trying to shape a good balanced system, and people like myself will retort in kind. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:43:43 -
[155] - Quote
I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2206
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:45:28 -
[156] - Quote
Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
330
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 03:37:28 -
[157] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore.
Okay, that's the best troll ever. Start using the Link on someone's stuff and then light a Cyno as soon as the warm-up cycle is over. Locals are left wondering if they should warp in or not because there's an open cyno but no local spike yet. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
330
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 03:41:07 -
[158] - Quote
Alexandros T'dra wrote:"Consumes 1 Stront per cycle"
Seems a rather low amount at just a mere 3 cubic meters. To prevent trolllogoffs behind the lines, increase this amount 10 fold. 30 cubic meters would give a frigate at least 8 to 10 cycles.
Except the same applies to any BS with a decent ammo loadout and 10 cycles is, with a T2 link, 8 minutes of capture assuming you aren't interrupted in any way, and for the actual contest over the structure (as opposed to the initial reinforcement) you're looking at *at least* 10 of these timers to burn down.
The fuel shouldn't be a significant impediment to capturing a system, but it should be there and be something you have to deal with because it mitigates some potentially problematic tactics, and if a fight goes on long enough then supply chains and other factors come into play in a big way. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6679
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:35:07 -
[159] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Rowells wrote:Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. Okay, that's the best troll ever. Start using the Link on someone's stuff and then light a Cyno as soon as the warm-up cycle is over. Locals are left wondering if they should warp in or not because there's an open cyno but no local spike yet. So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2210
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:45:58 -
[160] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Rowells wrote:Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. Okay, that's the best troll ever. Start using the Link on someone's stuff and then light a Cyno as soon as the warm-up cycle is over. Locals are left wondering if they should warp in or not because there's an open cyno but no local spike yet. So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced Hope the cargo crew is up to game.
"which container has the Strontium, we need it ASAP!" "Uhhhh, I think this one. Here, take it quick." *empties container into module fuel port* "Wait does that say 'Exotic Dancers' on the side?" |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
330
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:54:36 -
[161] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced
Hope the cargo crew is up to game. "which container has the Strontium, we need it ASAP!" "Uhhhh, I think this one. Here, take it quick." *empties container into module fuel port* "Wait does that say 'Exotic Dancers' on the side?"
CCP should do this for April Fools next year. Change the item portrait for all charges and fuel to Exotic Dancers.
But I digress, I think the fuel requirement is fine so far, but we won't know for sure until we get a chance to test this in practical terms. It's possible the fuel requirements may need a small bump, but even doubling them to 2 could have a significant impact on the progress of a long fight.
IMO better for them to low-ball it and have the fuel not matter too much, since it's not hard-stopping any obvious problems that I can see, rather than have the fuel completely grind Sov Warfare to a halt until CCP can patch in a fix. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1023
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:21:35 -
[162] - Quote
Quote: High Slot module, limit of one per ship
would it break anything to change this to
only one can be active
letting pilots chose to fit two but only use one at a time similar to ecm bursts?
EDIT:
to be honest im not sure who would use this but it would give more options and accomplish the same goal as only one per ship
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
331
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 08:12:28 -
[163] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Quote: High Slot module, limit of one per ship would it break anything to change this to only one can be active letting pilots chose to fit two but only use one at a time similar to ecm bursts? EDIT: to be honest im not sure who would use this but it would give more options and accomplish the same goal as only one per ship
There's no point to this except to abuse the weight increase for bumping or something of the sort. |
yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 11:02:23 -
[164] - Quote
Same as with Phoebe, masses of ceptor cowards stopped cheering cause they found out that the point of these changes is not making the life of the most competent organizations in game into living hell.
Entosis link makes sence now and will bring actual pvp into sov warfare. If you can't form at least a small fleet to take one system, you should consider a different EVE career than null sov. Frigates should be kept as support ships, not a tool for trolls that have no interest in fighting for sov space. It should require dedication and effort to have shiny things in a game. I believe that sov change at this point is on a good path to this. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2406
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 11:25:10 -
[165] - Quote
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
124
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 12:58:26 -
[166] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: So does this mean you support mu concept?
Is gud.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
45
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:43:46 -
[167] - Quote
rsantos wrote:The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!
Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry.
So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly.
But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)
CEO Svea Rike
|
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates Forged of Fire
81
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:07:34 -
[168] - Quote
Oh man, cruiser sized AND fuel required? Awesome.
The mass penalties are a nice touch. It means Amarr gain a slight boost due to how you guys manipulated their power to weight ratios to make plates feel better. I'm a fan of that too.
I feel this means people looking to entosis things will have to bring more than their whimsy, thank you. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
163
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:17:41 -
[169] - Quote
I think the 1 stront per cycle is too low it should be 10, meaning if you intend on taking multiple systems you need stront haulers with you. |
Agent Unknown
Night Theifs
40
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:25:47 -
[170] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.
Something something :suddenly supers: |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:45:00 -
[171] - Quote
Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers:
How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
125
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:45:05 -
[172] - Quote
Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers:
Always and forever to the grave. GÖÑ Bigger Better GÖÑ Sub-caps will be sub-caps GÖÑ Peasants will be peasants GÖÑ
Don't ye raise ye voice against the LORD, lest you want to suffer CAPITAL punishment.
MeBiatch wrote: How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?
How about no? Redundant levels of complexity are not a way to go.
Eve will sort out which ships are best for FozzieSov capture mechanics.
Even CCP don't know which shiptype/class that is going to be.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Agent Unknown
Night Theifs
40
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:51:33 -
[173] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers: How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?
Well, there's also controlling the grid and alphaing anything off the field with a deployed slowcat fleet to support said super that's using the e-link.
Encouraging the use of capitals to gain an advantage only contributes to the n+1 problem. If supers can be used, then alliances that can field enough supers/capital support to contest all the beacons will be at a great advantage. Granted, even with the penalty you can still do this, but at least it's discouraged. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:57:49 -
[174] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:rsantos wrote:The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!
Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry. So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly. But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)
I think ccp understand that there will always be blobing its human nature. What they are attempting to do is make the blob go from one grid in one system to multiple grids over a constellation. This should help server load but i fear will end up with multiple 30 min black loading screens which will just **** people off.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:03:45 -
[175] - Quote
Agent Unknown wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers: How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed? Well, there's also controlling the grid and alphaing anything off the field with a deployed slowcat fleet to support said super that's using the e-link. Encouraging the use of capitals to gain an advantage only contributes to the n+1 problem. If supers can be used, then alliances that can field enough supers/capital support to contest all the beacons will be at a great advantage. Granted, even with the penalty you can still do this, but at least it's discouraged.
all true but now remember there are 10 capture annoms in tge constellation you have to capture. Lets say cfc has taken 9 tgat means they only need one more to take the system. So now 5 new capture annoms have appeared. As n3 which one will you defend with carriers and supers? If you start jumping around willy nilly your jump fatigue willbgo threw the roof and if you split your firces equal tgen pl will jump in on a small group of supers and dd them to death.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
126
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:10:08 -
[176] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:...which one will you defend with carriers and supers? If you start jumping around willy nilly your jump fatigue willbgo threw the roof and if you split your firces equal tgen pl will jump in on a small group of supers and dd them to death.
Yespls.
Dear Lord Almighty, Make It Happen So!
Split them up, carve them up, demoralise with COAD... Terrorise the renters one system at a time... Plant the seeds of rebellion, awox and insurrection... Eat... Eat into the Heart of Deklein, Delve, Catch and every other region.
New Eden will bathe in Blood and righteous Fire, as Coalitions and Alliances begin to implode, vultures and hyenas will take what lies within reach.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:34:32 -
[177] - Quote
250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2214
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:36:17 -
[178] - Quote
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. if they break lock or go offgrid then they out of luck. 250km allows for all possible iterations of range available to larger ships. |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1140
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:37:39 -
[179] - Quote
WOOO Go go Golems and Ravens! |
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:37:39 -
[180] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. if they break lock or go offgrid then they out of luck. 250km allows for all possible iterations of range available to larger ships.
sorry, damn quickpost didn't post and I had to add something you could have potentially flamed...
"Make mobile depots bigger so they can't fit in ceptors" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |