Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Kystraz
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 04:48:56 -
[211] - Quote
Wilhelm Knicklicht wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:Wilhelm Knicklicht wrote:Amy Garzan wrote:
News for CCP (and you since you cant think). When Goons and the Imperium make up one of the largest player blocks, and we all quit, whos paying the bills?
Think that over.
the bills will be picked up by the next generation of new players who will actually keep playing the game because there's actually fun to be had even without owning titans. next question. http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility ...this can be seen by the enormous number of new accounts created, isn't it? (presuming i won't consider that there's a 8/2 ratio of alts/new players in that statistic ;) ) of course it would be nice to see player numbers quadruple over night. but that would not be a realistic expectation. dominion sov has been in place for six years. aegis not even six weeks. give it some time...
With the way player subscription numbers are dropping, we're more likely to see 1/4 of the old player base before we see 4x the old player base.
But I guess Fozzie wants a smaller player base for his smaller fights. |
Desaude
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 04:54:34 -
[212] - Quote
Kystraz wrote:[quote=Wilhelm Knicklicht][quote=OldWolf69][quote=Wilhelm Knicklicht][quote=Amy Garzan]
But I guess Fozzie wants a smaller player base for his smaller fights.
The best part of this is that no matter how many times we talk at the walls, we still expect a response... |
Cyonsiaros StrawHat
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 04:57:54 -
[213] - Quote
Can you make it so big fat ships capture nodes more quickly and small ships capture at a slower pace? ; Could that be the balance implemented so a quick cap has inheriently more risk and a cap by non-threatening small ships takes longer?
Maybe let ships be supported while entosising and allow select escalations. Even small entities have access to fat ships, even if they don't have bodies to fill hundreds. my concern is escalating loses its rhyme and reason; but if one attack had fat ships and was higher priority it might allow eve to retain that property.
At its root; the current state of the system implemented in theory would break up large fleets into smaller wings requiring many fc's or many chickens running around without heads. But that to me does not translate into the small gang conflicts and pvp that most players enjoy. The infrastructure alliances and corps small and large have built over the years typically supports large fleets with a hand full of individuals pulling the strings and using many ships as an extension of their mind as to be a general at war.
I understand that in theory smaller entities are supposed to claim a single plot in null and have odds of keeping it - but I don't know how much that will actually happen. For instance in my alliance there is many many fresh bodies who can act and react to the stimulous of an attack - as part of a numbers game. it is also well divded into various land parcels by corp which can make things easier and the SIG structure allows many operations to occur simultaneously throughout eve with enough bodies in the corporation home systems to react to stimulous.
Rather I don't see entosis as a threat; the preparation months prior and continued direction of my alliance makes any sov a non issue. On the other hand I could imagine the less than recent provi-bloc conflicts would have eneded very differently under entosis based gameplay in favor of Brave - which is interesting to think about in that fight on the other end of EVE.
I also think; someone with an idea; a method, an ambition who can rouse troops can start an entitity and make an impact under entosis. A large upstart could turn into an empire now more than ever; but they won't rest on their laurels; they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.. ( That is an interesting Idea and why sov changes can be healthy for the game )
But who wants to hire Black legion or Pandemic Legion frigates?
I am looking forward to a balance in the game and hope ccp can find one where escalations exist, new upstarts have a chance to fulfill their dreams and EVE players, who are all susceptible to burnout (due to the most inherently passive game ever) will be able to continue playing without growing disdain.
I don't claim my ideas or feelings reflect anyone elses thoughts other than my own theories. People dislike the current state of affairs for differing reasons; people have different observations and visions of where the game should be. My observations come from a series of changes over the summer and not just from the most recent implementation.
|
Gessiel
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 04:58:15 -
[214] - Quote
There are rare battles, but only for people looking for good fights. Putting a patch on this worthless FozzieSov is like putting a bandage on a migrane. Worthless. Have you noticed all prices are escalatinng downwards? Why even mine? When there were great battles, great ship loss, the hi sec people kept busy mining and manufacturing to replace them. But now........pffft.
I'm not a dev, but can't you see you are driving people away from the game with this? People want fights, people in null sec want to use big ships, we've been training them for ever. We want to go on deployments, but NO, keep those indexes up. We want to roam and get into battles, sov or no sov......but I've scoured 25 systems and not red/neut to be found.
Sad day. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2273
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:04:10 -
[215] - Quote
Kystraz wrote: But I guess Fozzie wants a smaller player base for his smaller fights.
From a sound business standpoint you'd want new people paying subs and having fun, not old, mostly offline players, drowning in ISK and in their own tears.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Kystraz
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:10:39 -
[216] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Kystraz wrote: But I guess Fozzie wants a smaller player base for his smaller fights.
From a sound business standpoint you'd want new people paying subs and having fun, not old, mostly offline players, drowning in ISK and in their own tears.
Games that are being abandoned en mass by the old players who were told they were playing the game wrong are totally the first ones new players are attracted to. |
Alphaomega21
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:15:21 -
[217] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Kystraz wrote: But I guess Fozzie wants a smaller player base for his smaller fights.
From a sound business standpoint you'd want new people paying subs and having fun, not old, mostly offline players, drowning in ISK and in their own tears.
I don't think you realize that every sub is money in CCP's pockets be it $15 a month or buying a plex on the market since someone had to pay CCP for that plex. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
696
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:29:03 -
[218] - Quote
Quote:You should only be using an Entosis Link if you've won the field - CCP Fozzie Clearly someone hasn't been paying attention as to how Entosis links are being used.
Your little speed nerf is just that - Little. Entosis link drawback - Unable to active prop mods, speed limited to 100 m/s (A bit harsh? Sure but so is what Entosis links can do)
The only way Entosis link use can be balanced is to actually balance it, you don't do that by pandering to the existing meta. As long as bubble immune speedster ceptors can fit Entosis links without any real drawback, sov will be nothing more than troll central. You stated you listened to feedback, you omitted to add you also chose to ignore it. -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Entosis links SHOULD have ship restrictions. They are without doubt the strongest command link in the game and so should be restricted to ships that can by design fit command links. Battle cruisers (T1 entosis link), Command ships (T2 Entosis link).
This would actually serve 2 outcomes, 1 would be making Battle cruisers a valid ship class to use, 2 force those who want to grief/troll sov to commit more than a solo ceptor.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
77
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:31:21 -
[219] - Quote
Marcus Covinus wrote: Iteration 1: Tower Sov
***
Iteration 2: Dominion Sov
***
Iteration 3: Aegis/Fozzie Sov
I think what you've missed is that in each iteration, there were two bars to pass.
One was the mechanical. As you stated, you couldn't take down a tower with an Interceptor.
The other though, was the defence. You also needed enough ships to take down the sov holder.
Sov has just lowered the mechanical bar - it hasn't touched the defence. For all the whining about absentee attackers, it doesn't get pointed out enough that Aegis has removed the opposite: absentee defenders no longer require a Dread fleet investment to take down some arbitrary millions of HP. |
TrickyBlackSteel
Russia Caldari RUCA Emperor
27
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:51:48 -
[220] - Quote
**** you all and your patch! |
|
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:57:27 -
[221] - Quote
troll ceptors aren't the real issue. the real issue is that alliances still own empty space.
if each system the alliance owns actually had someone there for the duration of the vuln. window, then nobody would try and troll in a ceptor.
not ccp's fault that people choose not to actually live in the systems they own.
|
TrickyBlackSteel
Russia Caldari RUCA Emperor
27
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 05:58:57 -
[222] - Quote
ccp mode troll online |
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works The Big Dirty
73
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:13:51 -
[223] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:troll ceptors aren't the real issue. the real issue is that alliances still own empty space.
if each system the alliance owns actually had someone there for the duration of the vuln. window, then nobody would try and troll in a ceptor.
not ccp's fault that people choose not to actually live in the systems they own.
^ THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS^
Also reading about 'barrier of entry into a trollceptor', 70 to 90 days? Crying about that on reddit... And yet the barrier of entry into a max skilled Catalyst pilot for ganking is... a LOT LESS than that. Yes, less nodes and this iteration is better. However if these crybabies can't get off their lazy butts and learn how to do more than be just a bunch of F1 monkeys, then Trollceptor away with your 3 month barrier of entry. CCP would do a lot more good rebalancing a few things to prevent all the people rage quitting over gankfreighterfest that EVE has turned into. It's basically ganks online and nullsec tears ragequit online.
Luckily I invested heavily in popcorn, all this salt is gonna give me a heart attack though. |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
281
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:18:43 -
[224] - Quote
Congratulation on the choice of changes for Galatea, they are reasonable and measured. It shows that CCP truly listen to all sides. Good job!
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
TWISTED TRANZISTOR
Blood Mad Penguins RED University
8
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:21:09 -
[225] - Quote
This is similar to a crutch. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
522
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:23:48 -
[226] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Here are my thoughts about the set of 'tweaks' that Fozzie announced:
They are simply amazing. They absolutely manage to touch and correct almost none of the issues that the majority of null players were pointing out very vocally.
Node reductions might be pointed out as a positive change, but the tweak on them is so light that is suspiciously looks like to me an attempt to damage control after the overwhelmingly negative feedback that has been addressed to Fozzie & the team.
With these levels of excellence at the inability to comprehend the basic demands of the null sov players, I can easily foresee EVE Online going F2P in short to medium term with the current trends of concurrent logins and subscription numbers rapidly bleeding out.
Well done Fozzie, now please do pen a dev blog about how you succeeded on placing the game on life support and prevented the death. Meanwhile, we'll be throwing soil on EVE's casket and saying our prayers in the grim cemetery of reality.
Reagalan made an excellent post about why your ideas and insistence on shoving a certain playstyle down the nullseccers collective throats is a bad idea. You might want to read that several times.
The majority of nullsec hasn't pointed to anything. A loud minority, consisting mostly of your alliance is crying and pointing at all the wrong things, rest of the playerbase and devs laugh at your futile mongering. You're wrong, suck it up or just gtfo- there''s literally nobody that cares whether you unsub or not, but at least have the decency to shut up.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
174
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:24:48 -
[227] - Quote
Galphii wrote:Consider prohibiting microwarpdrive use while entosis links are running I like this. 4km/s hard limit seems really random to me. What next? 100k EHP hard limit for T3 cruisers? 150km drone control range? 500 GJ/s capacitor regen when in triage? |
Vacant Glare
Ghost Recon Inc
14
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:27:47 -
[228] - Quote
Finally some feedback from AFK CCP
1: Speed needs to be severely limited when an Entosis Link is online(block Entosis and MWD running concurrently). 2: Remove ability from ALL nullified ships to fit a Entosis Link. 3: Make cloaks and the Entosis Link mutually exclusive to each other.
Unfortunately, we are seeing the ishtar tweak approach here. Hint the game and especially the new SOV system will not survive ice-cube tweaks it badly needs a Titanic sized ice-BERG to fix this.
The speed limitation does nothing to fix the 'trollceptor' and still doesn't address the issue of when systems are attacked with "Trollceptors" but never following up on, this is making SOV ownership worthless.
Make command nodes appear 1 or 2 appear at a time so that combat has to occur if contested. If no contest then have the nodes revert to sov owner over time but pretty fast say 2 hours. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
522
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:35:13 -
[229] - Quote
Marcus Covinus wrote:Iteration 3: Aegis/Fozzie Sov Implementation: TCU anchored and online in the system. What does it take to capture: An interceptor with an entosis link. *** Now do we see a problem here? You've gone the route of World Of Warcraft by slowly pandering to the lowest common denominator. You see smug bullsh*t like https://eveskunk.com/e/353067497 where the sole goal is to troll sov and create nodes with no intention of capture. (Yes I am calling MOA lowest common denominator) Recommendation: Entosis Link fits on Cruiser or larger hull only. Like a cyno, it restricts your movement. You've stated yourself. Quote:You should only be using an Entosis Link if you've won the field - CCP Fozzie
If one can use an interceptor to take your sov, that means you've lost the field. You have no military control on grid. How does it feel to lose to one cheap frigate? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
176
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:49:07 -
[230] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:troll ceptors aren't the real issue. the real issue is that alliances still own empty space. ... not ccp's fault that people choose not to actually live in the systems they own. While I strongly feel that interceptors are way too powerful for this role, I wanted to point out another thing. This IS direct ccp's fault that nullsec is not worth living in. People are there to build empires. What tools do we have for that, if even jump bridges are useless and capships are not wanted? Like seriously. I know the alliance that gives away motherships to their members. And players are like - nah, I dont have spare characters for that coffin. |
|
Jaxel Devren
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:56:08 -
[231] - Quote
You like feedback from real players CCP? My accounts are slowly going inactive 1 by 1 and now I play Elite Dangerous. |
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.
116
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:05:24 -
[232] - Quote
Balthusdire Dominus wrote:The speed limitation while helpful doesn't solve the underlying problem of no risk to an attacker.
Good to see things moving forward. I think fozzie sov can be fun, just needs some more work.
If you can't kill a 4km/s ceptor that cannot warp, the issue is with you not the system... |
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.
116
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:06:55 -
[233] - Quote
Lim Yoona wrote:I'm gonna vote with my wallet on this one and cancel my subs. This used to be a good game maybe one day it'll get better.
After this crop of small gang devs goes to Riot.
Thank you. You won't be missed. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1051
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:07:52 -
[234] - Quote
I understand that one of your stated design goals was to have as little effect on the ships that people brought to a fight as possible. I understand the reason for that desire and I respect it, but I believe I that goal isnt a good goal to have.
People dont want an actual fight, they want to show up and massacre their opponents or run away which is the cause for all of this frustration and these super risk averse fleets. This has always been the case, and the new sov system is just the latest way these people are baiting fights.
Contesting sov should be just that, an actual attempt to contest sov, not just an attempt by a roaming group to bait a quick fight, or troll the holding alliance with uncatchable ships never truly meant to contest the space. In light of that philosophy, I suggest the following three changes
1. Change the entosis link to a 5 minute (300 second) duration. 2. Change Mass Increase on the entosis link to 7,500,000 for the T2 and 1,000,000 for the T1 3. Change the range of the T2 entosis link to 225 km
These three small changes will make disengaging from a fight far more difficult and I believe they will result in better fights and fewer troll attempts.
Thoughts? |
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:09:56 -
[235] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Warmeister wrote:troll ceptors aren't the real issue. the real issue is that alliances still own empty space. ... not ccp's fault that people choose not to actually live in the systems they own. While I strongly feel that interceptors are way too powerful for this role, I wanted to point out another thing. This IS direct ccp's fault that nullsec is not worth living in.People are there to build empires. What tools do we have for that, if even jump bridges are useless and capships are not wanted? Like seriously. I know the alliance that gives away motherships to their members. And players are like - nah, I dont have spare characters for that coffin. i didn't say null sec is not worth living in. you don't see people evacing their assets and dropping sov, so obviously it is worth it. especially considering the stupid amount of money people make from rental empires and the fact that there are people willing to pay that money.
what i said is that people capture sov but don't intend to live in it. the sole purpose of it is so they can see a big spot on the map with their name so when someone comes and tries to take it away from them, instead of showing up to protect this space, they cry to CCP about broken mechanics.
|
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
157
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:11:47 -
[236] - Quote
I'm not exactly sure why the entosis modules need these crazy ranges but w/e.
The real issue is that you're basically fighting your other game mechanics. The only way to deal with gate camps is jump, mwd trick and cloak, hope they don't lock you at all, or to fly an interceptor.
That situation means ceptors have to be hard to catch close up.
The new sov situation is the opposite, you can sit anywhere in a very large radius, removing the spatial constraint you had previously, but ceptors and other fast ships are still allowed to do be in this situation.
That's only a problem because there is simply no way to catch up to someone like that at all. It's also true for a sov node 'fight' but the problem originates in the basic design of combat that you can't engage someone faster than you if he doesn't want to fight.
You have the same problem with various fast cruisers that are effectively too fast to be probed down. If they want to troll you, in your system, for indefinite amounts of time, they can. No restrictions. Same applies to afk cloakers.
There are no chocke points inside systems or here on sov node grids, there is no fuel they could run out of thus removing their advantage, there is no way to outplay someone going faster than you or cloaking at all, ever, in any way, with any ship or module or gun or number of people.
THIS actual issue, I'd very much like to see solved and I'd be very curious to see your ideas and solutions to it, but I don't think you're going to touch it, because sov is the priority right now and I'm sure there are like 10 other things going on too.
Good luck! |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
861
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:19:35 -
[237] - Quote
Remove it from ceptors all together.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1954
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:24:17 -
[238] - Quote
"The mass penalty is being replaced with a "speed limit"-á"
Finally! Something some of us having been asking for as long as it was possible.
More penalties for fast stuff, no useless penalty for everyone including slow doctrines.
You should reduce the limit to 3k5 though in my opinion. 4k cannot even be reached by all inties.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1038
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:25:39 -
[239] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Galphii wrote:Consider prohibiting microwarpdrive use while entosis links are running I like this. 4km/s hard limit seems really random to me. What next? 100k EHP hard limit for T3 cruisers? 150km drone control range? 500 GJ/s capacitor regen when in triage? Implying arbitrary limit prohibiting usage of buffer mods on T3s / DCLs / cap rechargers with triage would be better (which is what quoted idea amounts to when analogy with your examples is drawn).
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7012
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 07:28:08 -
[240] - Quote
Looks like Fozzie SOV is here to stay.
Good luck to CCP and everybody involved. Hope it all works out in the end.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |