Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1347
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:12:43 -
[61] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Ted McManfist wrote:Could you please allow Stront in cargo holds of ships stored in carriers? It's required for the operation of an Entosis Link, but you currently cannot store a vessel in a carrier / super / titan with Strontium in the cargo hold. Liquid Ozone is a charge for a cyno and you can't store that either..... REMOVE ALL restrictions on cargo holds. Moving anything with a carrier is aids compared to a JF post phoebe
Fully supported. Great idea.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Chase Hakoke
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Black Legion.
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 17:30:02 -
[62] - Quote
command nodes are awful. just have one node so we can have one fun concentrated fight. |
Scorpio DK
FireStar Inc Evictus.
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 19:16:09 -
[63] - Quote
not sure if it's been mentioned
add the % to the levels like you see on the ihub to the corporation - alliances - claimed systems window so all can see what % a level is currently at in any system for any char rather than having someone to fly to the ihub for every system |
Dersen Lowery
Scanners Live in Vain
1712
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 19:54:47 -
[64] - Quote
If an overview has other sov structures checked, can you auto-check new sov structures when you introduce them?
Apparently, the capture nodes are like Attack Battlecruisers in that they were slipped in to the overview settings unchecked by default.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 23:37:51 -
[65] - Quote
Chase Hakoke wrote:command nodes are awful. just have one node so we can have one fun concentrated fight. It has been specifically designed to have many spread out fun fights instead of getting your blob on top of it and being fat.
That said, you can always have your fun fight on initial reinforce, there's only station/TCU/IHUB to reinforce, here's your one node. If you want to get a gudfait out of it, I suggest to tell your opponents in advance, so they will have a fun welcoming party. |
|
CCP Sharq
C C P C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 10:50:01 -
[66] - Quote
Thanks guys!
We're processing your feedback, we'll see what we can do to give you a better Sov experience.
Fly dangerously
EVE UI Designer | Team Five-0 | @CCP_Sharq
|
|
Jennifer Cho
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 11:08:34 -
[67] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Ted McManfist wrote:Could you please allow Stront in cargo holds of ships stored in carriers? It's required for the operation of an Entosis Link, but you currently cannot store a vessel in a carrier / super / titan with Strontium in the cargo hold. Liquid Ozone is a charge for a cyno and you can't store that either..... REMOVE ALL restrictions on cargo holds. Moving anything with a carrier is aids compared to a JF post phoebe Fully supported. Great idea.
You used to be able to put anything in the cargoholds of ships in a carrier hangar - that was until it was discovered you could fit Skiffs with a volume of 5,000 with cargo expanders and place 20,000+ in their cargoholds creating a jump freighter.... CCP were less than impressed hence the limits to what you can place in cargoholds. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
264
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 11:22:09 -
[68] - Quote
Jennifer Cho wrote:You used to be able to put anything in the cargoholds of ships in a carrier hangar - that was until it was discovered you could fit Skiffs with a volume of 5,000 with cargo expanders and place 20,000+ in their cargoholds creating a jump freighter.... CCP were less than impressed hence the limits to what you can place in cargoholds.
Uh really? Skiffs used to have an unpackaged volume of 5000 m3? Because that's 5% of what it is now.
Well regardless of the details it would still be abusable today, although the details would be different. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
273
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:20:12 -
[69] - Quote
Jennifer Cho wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Ted McManfist wrote:Could you please allow Stront in cargo holds of ships stored in carriers? It's required for the operation of an Entosis Link, but you currently cannot store a vessel in a carrier / super / titan with Strontium in the cargo hold. Liquid Ozone is a charge for a cyno and you can't store that either..... REMOVE ALL restrictions on cargo holds. Moving anything with a carrier is aids compared to a JF post phoebe Fully supported. Great idea. You used to be able to put anything in the cargoholds of ships in a carrier hangar - that was until it was discovered you could fit Skiffs with a volume of 5,000 with cargo expanders and place 20,000+ in their cargoholds creating a jump freighter.... CCP were less than impressed hence the limits to what you can place in cargoholds.
CORRECT
NOW, however, you can spit farther than a carrier can jump and using a JF is a much much much better proposition, therefore the "NEED" for the restrictions is no longer applicable |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
273
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:21:13 -
[70] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Jennifer Cho wrote:You used to be able to put anything in the cargoholds of ships in a carrier hangar - that was until it was discovered you could fit Skiffs with a volume of 5,000 with cargo expanders and place 20,000+ in their cargoholds creating a jump freighter.... CCP were less than impressed hence the limits to what you can place in cargoholds. Uh really? Skiffs used to have an unpackaged volume of 5000 m3? Because that's 5% of what it is now. Well regardless of the details it would still be abusable today, although the details would be different.
No, he means assembled, then cargo expanded to hold "Stuff" then put in the SMA
It was why the restriction were put in place cause a carrier could jump 14.25 LY |
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
110
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 16:35:44 -
[71] - Quote
Aeon Veritas wrote:What makes me a little unhappy is that atm not small scale groups are encuraged, what iirc was the intention of this sov change. But solo gameplay with entosis-interceptors is encuraged, no matter if for attacking the sov or for deffending it... Except maybe for the case that someone actually shows up to claim the thing after the RF-period...
I'm not sure if I realy want this, but my proposal is to increase the capture time by 500% but allow up to 5 people of the same alliance to use their entosis links simultaneously. That way 5 people should be as fast as one is now... As soon as one link of another alliance is used on the structure the capturing proces is paused, like is is now.
On this,
How about a diminishing return, similar to stacked modules, so that more people can entose, but the have less return. It is a good mechanic to add pressure to defenders to get out and defend, but at the same time, they can get their stuff back that much faster.
Then, you, CCP, can fiddle with the entosis timers up or down to reach the sweet spot for fleet work.
Could also be fun to add different types of command nodes that respond differently to Entosing, so that different fleet comps are needed to capture the flag. The different types of nodes could be based on the Sov Index of the system the structure is in, so that higher sov generates bigger/badder nodes that need heavier ships/capital support. In that case, maybe you tell your line members to go anom somewhere else to keep the index artificially low since you can't field the best fleet for it.
Just random thoughts :)
Cedric
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1354
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 17:03:03 -
[72] - Quote
Jennifer Cho wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Ted McManfist wrote:Could you please allow Stront in cargo holds of ships stored in carriers? It's required for the operation of an Entosis Link, but you currently cannot store a vessel in a carrier / super / titan with Strontium in the cargo hold. Liquid Ozone is a charge for a cyno and you can't store that either..... REMOVE ALL restrictions on cargo holds. Moving anything with a carrier is aids compared to a JF post phoebe Fully supported. Great idea. You used to be able to put anything in the cargoholds of ships in a carrier hangar - that was until it was discovered you could fit Skiffs with a volume of 5,000 with cargo expanders and place 20,000+ in their cargoholds creating a jump freighter.... CCP were less than impressed hence the limits to what you can place in cargoholds.
That was before Jump Fatigue.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
110
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 19:09:17 -
[73] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Jennifer Cho wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Ted McManfist wrote:Could you please allow Stront in cargo holds of ships stored in carriers? It's required for the operation of an Entosis Link, but you currently cannot store a vessel in a carrier / super / titan with Strontium in the cargo hold. Liquid Ozone is a charge for a cyno and you can't store that either..... REMOVE ALL restrictions on cargo holds. Moving anything with a carrier is aids compared to a JF post phoebe Fully supported. Great idea. You used to be able to put anything in the cargoholds of ships in a carrier hangar - that was until it was discovered you could fit Skiffs with a volume of 5,000 with cargo expanders and place 20,000+ in their cargoholds creating a jump freighter.... CCP were less than impressed hence the limits to what you can place in cargoholds. That was before Jump Fatigue.
This particular mechanic was removed because it turned Carriers into the default item moving vessel and was terribly abused. People would back Itty 5's (back when that was the only industrial that could hold 25k+ m3) with large guns and other items that would then be melted at some destination. The problem is that the melted minerals took up more volume than the item itself... basically compressed minerals in the form of modules.
This made logistics way too easy, was very much abused, and took roles away from the (jump) freighter and gave too much versatility to Carriers.
No, the change to disallow certain items in the cargo of Ships stored in a carrier is a good change and should not be changed. They've already given us item-specific industrials, Transport ships w/ 50k m3 fleet hangars and everything in between anyway!
Cedric
|
Tallardar
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 21:22:51 -
[74] - Quote
Not sure if it was brought up but one thing that'd be nice is to see the percentages of how much a Sov Structure is being defended.
For example http://i.imgur.com/yKLIyeR.jpg
We can hover over systems for FW and see that, like the picture shows, Abune is 38.7% defended but with the info for VV0-R6 we can only guestimate based off the bar underneath the structure that is currently contested. Doing something similar shouldn't be hard and would be useful information to have as both an attack and a defender no?
Pandemic Horde Tutorial Videos | Monthly Nullsec Recap
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 02:40:19 -
[75] - Quote
From what I see on the timetable...
1) IHUBs are being reinforced only in 2 cases: people are going to live in that system, or troll purposes. Otherwise nobody cares. 2) TCUs are being reinforced for troll purposes only. Literally nobody cares about those, and honestly, there's no reason to - if enemy is willing to pay sov bills for you, who are you to forbid them? There is no benefit of having them, only the trolling liability, which is happily shifted to enemy, with all the strategic defense multiplier they have mounted over time. 3) Stations were supposed to be a gudfait, but instead they are lock break bombs trollfest, alpha thrasher gangs trollfest, and griffins trollfest. I know lock breaking is supposed to be a sov thing now, but capturing a node with only contest being a lock-breaking bomber every 5 minutes is a royal PITA.
1 is working as intended I guess. you don't need IHUB if you don't want upgrades now. 2 is questionable at the moment. Holding sov provides no meaningful benefit and not tied to stations anymore, so why hold it? All the "ego" reasons turned into thin air. Guess the new influence maps are going to be based on station ownership only... 3 I believe it was supposed to be revolving around "grid control", and trollfest parties doesn't care much about that. Well, I guess there can be meta-fix of this, involving entosis ships with high ECCM and EHP fits... but still, this was supposed to be lowsec fwfest, and it turned into hisec gankfest instead, now with no criminal flagging.
new suggestions: Deal with 2. For 3, increase weapon timers on attacking active entosis ships and disallow self-destruction while on timer, before whole alliances start showing up in nothing but thrashers. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
348
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 18:41:17 -
[76] - Quote
The capture system for FozzieSov is beautiful, but the vulnerability and index-boosting mechanics make it a full time job to try and secure a newly captured system - and it's even worse if you don't make good friends with everyone in close reach of the region. In effect, the vulnerability window mechanics are backwards; systems start at maximum vulnerability, and then become less and less vulnerable (allowing established groups to invest a lot less effort and time) into holding up their guard. This is working against the stated goals of making it easier for small groups to get started, it makes taking sov into a full time job (the exact opposite of the stated goal), and the 100% guarantee of decreased vulnerability over time works against the goal of making people live in their space.
The sov system would work much better for all parties, IMO, if the vulnerability window did not start at maximum vulnerability. A system's vulnerability trend that looked something like this would be much better:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKieLGaUkAA1oQ7.png |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
274
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:55:33 -
[77] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:The capture system for FozzieSov is beautiful, but the vulnerability and index-boosting mechanics make it a full time job to try and secure a newly captured system - and it's even worse if you don't make good friends with everyone in close reach of the region. In effect, the vulnerability window mechanics are backwards; systems start at maximum vulnerability, and then become less and less vulnerable (allowing established groups to invest a lot less effort and time) into holding up their guard. This is working against the stated goals of making it easier for small groups to get started, it makes taking sov into a full time job (the exact opposite of the stated goal), and the 100% guarantee of decreased vulnerability over time works against the goal of making people live in their space. The sov system would work much better for all parties, IMO, if the vulnerability window did not start at maximum vulnerability. A system's vulnerability trend that looked something like this would be much better: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKieLGaUkAA1oQ7.png
Well, the "Easier" part was you didn't need 50 supers to grind the EHP of the TCU, iHUB and Station
Never was Fozzie sov supposed to be a welfare sov handout system. You still have to work for Sov |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
348
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:46:57 -
[78] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Well, the "Easier" part was you didn't need 50 supers to grind the EHP of the TCU, iHUB and Station
Never was Fozzie sov supposed to be a welfare sov handout system. You still have to work for Sov
Asking for a window to get some traction isn't begging for welfare.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
274
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:02:45 -
[79] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Well, the "Easier" part was you didn't need 50 supers to grind the EHP of the TCU, iHUB and Station
Never was Fozzie sov supposed to be a welfare sov handout system. You still have to work for Sov Asking for a window to get some traction isn't begging for welfare.
Gee, that is funny, we RF'd 28 items today, a few hours ago, we had a total of One Crow and One manitcore come hassle us. I am not sure what other window you want.
In the past week, i have entosis'd roughly 10 things SOLO and haven't seen as much as a single spaceship on my overview
Maybe you are just not doing it right |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2059
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 01:36:54 -
[80] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Well, the "Easier" part was you didn't need 50 supers to grind the EHP of the TCU, iHUB and Station
Never was Fozzie sov supposed to be a welfare sov handout system. You still have to work for Sov Asking for a window to get some traction isn't begging for welfare.
You mean you want a free buffer defense multiplier in the time it takes to get your ratting/mining people rolling? |
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
348
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 05:43:19 -
[81] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:You mean you want a free buffer defense multiplier in the time it takes to get your ratting/mining people rolling?
Something like that, but not exactly.
With sixteen hours of vulnerability, almost anyone can keep trading back and forth for quite some time, making it extremely difficult for people making a sov-grab to get any traction and security without going full no-life mode and calling friends. Starting off with the maximum window of vulnerability is unnecessary. The base vulnerability window in a newly captured system should be something closer to four hours, before it rapidly degenerates (long before you can grind the system into an even moderately invulnerable position) into the maximum 12 hour window. |
Razor Z
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 13:22:42 -
[82] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:You mean you want a free buffer defense multiplier in the time it takes to get your ratting/mining people rolling? Something like that, but not exactly. With sixteen hours of vulnerability, almost anyone can keep trading back and forth for quite some time, making it extremely difficult for people making a sov-grab to get any traction and security without going full no-life mode and calling friends. Starting off with the maximum window of vulnerability is unnecessary. The base vulnerability window in a newly captured system should be something closer to four hours, before it rapidly degenerates (long before you can grind the system into an even moderately invulnerable position) into the maximum 12 hour window.
Exactly, a very good point. One of the stated goals of the new sov system, and in particular the vulnerability window, is that alliances shouldn't have to feel that they need to work 23x7 just to hold a system. Right now it is incredibly difficult to take a system from a hostile entity and then HOLD that system long enough to get the indicies up to a level where the vulnerability window is actually down to where you can defend it. Right now all the enemy has to do is wait until you are sleeping or not very active and then a single elinking ceptor can reinforce everything you just took at 10 minutes a structure... and because your window is so large, the timer will be WAY out of your timezone. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
274
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 15:45:37 -
[83] - Quote
Razor Z wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:You mean you want a free buffer defense multiplier in the time it takes to get your ratting/mining people rolling? Something like that, but not exactly. With sixteen hours of vulnerability, almost anyone can keep trading back and forth for quite some time, making it extremely difficult for people making a sov-grab to get any traction and security without going full no-life mode and calling friends. Starting off with the maximum window of vulnerability is unnecessary. The base vulnerability window in a newly captured system should be something closer to four hours, before it rapidly degenerates (long before you can grind the system into an even moderately invulnerable position) into the maximum 12 hour window. Exactly, a very good point. One of the stated goals of the new sov system, and in particular the vulnerability window, is that alliances shouldn't have to feel that they need to work 23x7 just to hold a system. Right now it is incredibly difficult to take a system from a hostile entity and then HOLD that system long enough to get the indicies up to a level where the vulnerability window is actually down to where you can defend it. Right now all the enemy has to do is wait until you are sleeping or not very active and then a single elinking ceptor can reinforce everything you just took at 10 minutes a structure... and because your window is so large, the timer will be WAY out of your timezone.
OK, so going from 0/0/0 system
Sov index goes as fast as it goes....nothing can be done
Military index rate was INCREASED dramatically
You can go from 1 to 2 in a matter of a few hours while belt ratting, then you kinda have to wait for DT to have anomolies spawn.
After DT the anomolies doubled now, provide plenty of realistic chance to raise your index to 3 or 4 QUICKLY
When you go from 1-2 the ADM updates IMMEDIATELY
ADM 0/0/0 = 6H 0/0/1 = 5H 0/0/2 = 4H 17M 0/0/3 = 3H 49M
If getting the index from 1 to 3 in 2 days is too much for your alliance and having a 6H TZ coverage, then you are probably not the target for sov holders
I am assuming by the fact you talk about taking sov and bitching about 16H vunerability window you either: A. Don't know how capital system work B. Already own sov somewhere and have designated a capital system, in which case you should be acute aware how hard it is to hold sov (I looked on dotlan and you don't, so that leads me to believe you are clueless and A applies)
Either way, if you can't dedicate a few hours in the first few days to increase your index and raise your ADM, you probably don't deserve SOV |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
348
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 18:19:33 -
[84] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:You mean you want a free buffer defense multiplier in the time it takes to get your ratting/mining people rolling? Something like that, but not exactly. With sixteen hours of vulnerability, almost anyone can keep trading back and forth for quite some time, making it extremely difficult for people making a sov-grab to get any traction and security without going full no-life mode and calling friends. Starting off with the maximum window of vulnerability is unnecessary. The base vulnerability window in a newly captured system should be something closer to four hours, before it rapidly degenerates (long before you can grind the system into an even moderately invulnerable position) into the maximum 12 hour window.
After looking over the patch notes and reviewing the game mechanics, it looks like most of my fundamental concerns are already addressed by the system. |
BogeyBomber
I'm Fine and You Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 20:00:36 -
[85] - Quote
Chase Hakoke wrote:command nodes are awful. just have one node so we can have one fun concentrated fight.
I partially agree with chase's comment here. But instead of awful I would describe it as excessive and drawn-out. My experience with defending is that fights are mostly-avoidable because of the quantity of command nodes that are spawning. The opposing force doesn't need to hold the field because they can just find another node to hack. This has resulted in fleets mostly lying-in-wait until 1. a node is being hacked by the opposition or 2. our hacker is being aggressed. While this was fun for a while, it has grown boring.
I would like to offer two suggestions to help streamline and intensify the sov battle:
1. Reduce the quantity of commands nodes necessary to win. I'd recommend a Best of 5, 7, or 8... I like an even-number because, in the event of a tie, a Sudden Death node could spawn.
Or,
2. Add a countdown to the battle. 3 hour fleets consisting mostly of lying-in-wait, suck. A two hour countdown where the intensity climaxes toward the end is more tolerable. In this scenario the nodes would re-spawn but not on a 1:1 ratio. Later spawning nodes would become more and more important while simultaneously bringing the opposing forces into closer contact with one another.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2069
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 00:54:15 -
[86] - Quote
BogeyBomber wrote:Chase Hakoke wrote:command nodes are awful. just have one node so we can have one fun concentrated fight. I partially agree with chase's comment here. But instead of awful I would describe it as excessive and drawn-out. My experience with defending is that fights are mostly-avoidable because of the quantity of command nodes that are spawning. The opposing force doesn't need to hold the field because they can just find another node to hack. This has resulted in fleets mostly lying-in-wait until 1. a node is being hacked by the opposition or 2. our hacker is being aggressed. While this was fun for a while, it has grown boring. I would like to offer two suggestions to help streamline and intensify the sov battle: 1. Reduce the quantity of commands nodes necessary to win. I'd recommend a Best of 5, 7, or 8... I like an even-number because, in the event of a tie, a Sudden Death node could spawn. Or, 2. Add a countdown to the battle. 3 hour fleets consisting mostly of lying-in-wait, suck. A two hour countdown where the intensity climaxes toward the end is more tolerable. In this scenario the nodes would re-spawn but not on a 1:1 ratio. Later spawning nodes would become more and more important while simultaneously bringing the opposing forces into closer contact with one another.
Probably the number and speed of spawn of nodes is the point ccp is most collecting data. We need to give them more time to colelct more data from the game live so then they can make adjustments as such.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1677
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 12:46:40 -
[87] - Quote
The 3 sov badges (Ihub, TCU, Station) need a percentage indicator for capturing progress when nodes spawned. The bar and circle is nice and dandy, but it's usefulness is limited at best.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
348
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 08:34:40 -
[88] - Quote
The need to inhibit agility in entosis-interceptors was recognized before FozzieSov went live, but it doesn't quite seem sufficient. What if fitting Entosis Links also broke bubble-immunity?
I don't think the system can achieve its end goals of diversifying the habitation of nullsec if security indices can be boosted up by absolutely anyone. There's no shortage of people who only want to use 0.0 space to PVE all day, and so long as they can go to one place to get it, that's the one place they will go. Perhaps a subtle change can be made that makes military and industrial indices unaffected by people outside of the sov-holding alliance? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1384
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 17:01:22 -
[89] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:
I don't think the system can achieve its end goals of diversifying the habitation of nullsec if security indices can be boosted up by absolutely anyone. There's no shortage of people who only want to use 0.0 space to PVE all day, and so long as they can go to one place to get it, that's the one place they will go. Perhaps a subtle change can be made that makes military and industrial indices unaffected by people outside of the sov-holding alliance?
Part of the intent of Fozziesov is to make people get out in space to do things. People out in space doing things provide content for others. It doesn't matter whether the ratters and miners have the same alliance ticker as the sov holder - as long as they are out in space to act as targets.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
348
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 02:52:13 -
[90] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Part of the intent of Fozziesov is to make people get out in space to do things. People out in space doing things provide content for others. It doesn't matter whether the ratters and miners have the same alliance ticker as the sov holder - as long as they are out in space to act as targets.
Sure, but who is going to go after an extremely painful, maximum defense index system, whose defense responsibilities have been outsourced to a renter group that's paying for the privilege?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |