Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Poikilosis
5th Burwell Airborne Division Care Factor
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 22:34:00 -
[61] - Quote
A different view of how 0.0 could work would strengthen the CSM
+1 Soll |
Grateful Soldier
TalCorp Enterprises Care Factor
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 23:27:00 -
[62] - Quote
+1 Sollana
A 0.0 existence needs improving. |
Anastasius Steiner
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 15:07:00 -
[63] - Quote
I really LOVE how Goons and Test are trolling for Mittani, to get him in CSM :D
+1 for their brave Trolling ;) |
testobjekt
Creative Accounting Institute
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
A voice of reason is always a silent voice. we need irreationality to rule this game! |
Gloomy Gus
GoonWaffe
217
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:49:00 -
[65] - Quote
Anastasius Steiner wrote:trolling for Mittani, to get him in CSM
yes we only troll for good causes at other times we remain silent
Sincerely, Gloomy Gus, Spaceship Pilot.
This post has been signed and sealed by Gloomy Gus, poster on an internet space ship forum entitled EVE: Gate. All Rights Reserved. |
entroncas
Catalina Operations and Logistics Division Supernova Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 18:52:00 -
[66] - Quote
Gloomy Gus wrote:Anastasius Steiner wrote:trolling for Mittani, to get him in CSM yes we only troll for good causes at other times we remain silent
Soll is our good cause, but we don't need to troll to defend it.
|
Sollana
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 07:57:00 -
[67] - Quote
Other have there views, as always.... this does not mean I have to agree with them, But if they are good for the universe then so beit.
I am not a member of a Large gamer society.
NRDS is a way of life, accepting neutrals who wish to progress, who wish to experience 0.0 without extreme ganking.
CCP said before dominion, that it wanted to build a system very much like providence in 0.0, but with no NRDS representatives on the council, it showed that CCP did not have a clue on this style of game play.
Vote for me and NRDS will get a voice |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 08:00:00 -
[68] - Quote
Sollana wrote:The general perception of 0.0 space, is lawless and those with the bigger guns take what they want. In most aspects you would be correct, But there are other options.
My name is Sollana, and I announce myself as a candidate for the upcoming CSM elections.
I live in Providence, and I am an Amarrian fighting for a cause greater than that of war, conquest and riches. I am Fighting for the future of our Empires.
0.0 space does not have to be war ridden and constantly changing, In the past year we have seen the fall of the Northern Coalition, We have seen the mighty powerblocks, stumble and fall. All because greed and power overcame them all.
I propose that not all 0.0 pilots think this way, as part of CVA and its allies, we aim to build something greater, something more permanent something that will live on after we have turned to dust. We build a civilisation, we build infrastructure and we build for the capsuleers who have nothing, but the will to succeed.
But Civilisation is not perfect, currently EVE does not allow us to protect our homes, unless we use ships?? Although this can produce some great fights, the old system before Dominion gave the defenders a chance, and I propose that as part of Sovereignty upgrades Station and Gate defenses should be onlined.
Concord are allowed to have station and gate guns, so why is that not possible within 0.0. This would promote a reason to SBU a system and needing to do it covertly. currently there is no risk to SBUing a system, where the only defense is to use super capitals or grind them once they have been placed.
Having armaments in position on gates and station, can be increase with upgrades in the Ihub and be based on sov level (1 battery per gate per level for instance, double that for the station). this would also add a new dynamic to gate camping reds blockading a system, as currently there is no risk in 0.0.
0.0 space does not allow for coalitions to have fully agreed charters, I propose the idea of presenting a charter. which will have many options and can be voted upon buy directors of many alliances, which will give automatic standings, standing updates (i.e if someone is turned red by 1 alliance./corp, the rest in the charter are notificed automatically of the change).
0.0 is the future of EVE, but not in the way most people see.
If you feel I can represent you, then "like" this post, and If you have questions, Please feel free to post them here.
Update: My stance is 0.0 space should have more defence against the mighty powerblocks.
Another example of my issues is Time Dialation. although this is a great Idea, why is TD taken from populated systems.
Last night a section of Providence was down to 10% TD, all because of a battle in Branch, There are issues here, especially when you can travel through delve, catch and cure aand have completely empty constellations.
So basically to summarize you're an idiot.
Regards,
Jeff R Aider
|
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:36:00 -
[69] - Quote
Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
Sollana
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
178
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:58:00 -
[70] - Quote
MY blog and updated topics |
|
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 21:01:00 -
[71] - Quote
k, i see nothing relating specifically to the subject, does this mean you have no specific view?
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
OrangeRed
Viziam Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 21:24:00 -
[72] - Quote
How would you see gate guns working in tandem with bubbling in gates? Would this not remove all small ships from 0.0? Would this not create a true entry level for new players in that they must now be able to tank gate guns before they can participate in 0.0 pvp? Is this your intent? |
SeerinDarkness
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 03:29:00 -
[73] - Quote
no not if they use the already well established pos modules small guns= all ships med guns = cruiser+ Lg guns BS + with apropriate tracking tweaks and as far as i know no location can have more than 6 guns anyway...and if small ships want to operate then they will have to adapt to old school anti-pos gun tactics agian. and on deadly ground Fight! |
OrangeRed
Viziam Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 04:32:00 -
[74] - Quote
All that gate guns would accomplish is to deter small gang fights and would make the region no easier to defend against invaders as six guns on a gate will be easily incapped by a large fleet. It's a broken idea. |
SeerinDarkness
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 13:03:00 -
[75] - Quote
orangered and the rest of you commenting thatr are all npc corp man up and post with your mains or join a 0.0 alliance and play the real eve before you even start on anything sollana has to say npc knownothings need to go stand in the corner and be quiet because you KNOW NOTHING! SPOON VICTOR! :] |
Trenc Amaroem
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:07:00 -
[76] - Quote
SeerinDarkness wrote:orangered and the rest of you commenting thatr are all npc corp man up and post with your mains or join a 0.0 alliance and play the real eve before you even start on anything sollana has to say npc knownothings need to go stand in the corner and be quiet because you KNOW NOTHING! SPOON VICTOR! :]
Posting with my main. Do we still get to have a conversation about my objections? The idea of adding gate guns to 0.0 is still broken. |
SeerinDarkness
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:49:00 -
[77] - Quote
sure we can have conversations about it its a broken mechanic before it even gets off the ground because
1 it is an "Annoyance" from npc space or is it OMgoash what a PITA thats going to be with providence fleets mixed in hmm? 2 its broken broken just because OMgosh its a well thought out idea that is easile implemented with minmal changes from the meddling jovian scientists. 3 Change is BAD! paticularly any kind of change that might be of benifit to those PESKY Providencians! sheesh my cats are better at this chuckles 4 fleets will just kill them off and they will be useless is that not what remote repeprs are for and logistics? 5 All Of The Above.
i think that about covers it
Sollana for CSM!
Having to tank empire! gate guns is already a non hi sec entry level requirement and those do omni-damage. talking about entry level is just mis-direction |
Trenc Amaroem
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:28:00 -
[78] - Quote
SeerinDarkness wrote:sure we can have conversations about it its a broken mechanic before it even gets off the ground because
1 it is an "Annoyance" from npc space or is it OMgoash what a PITA thats going to be with providence fleets mixed in hmm? 2 its broken broken just because OMgosh its a well thought out idea that is easile implemented with minmal changes from the meddling jovian scientists. 3 Change is BAD! paticularly any kind of change that might be of benifit to those PESKY Providencians! sheesh my cats are better at this chuckles 4 fleets will just kill them off and they will be useless is that not what remote repeprs are for and logistics? 5 All Of The Above.
i think that about covers it
Sollana for CSM!
Having to tank empire! gate guns is already a non hi sec entry level requirement and those do omni-damage. talking about entry level is just mis-direction I'm assuming you want to set it up so that it aggros based on the sov holders standings so not the same as npc null. My point is that it is a minor annoyance to a gang with logistics and no fast tackle but ruins the game for frigates in roaming gangs. |
SeerinDarkness
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:47:00 -
[79] - Quote
there would be no point to NOT set it up hooked into sov holders standings, and i would object to having some kind of special gun modules made over using standard pos gun battery modules and codeing for a fuel bay on 0.0gates and outposts with fuel block useage for power by type of gate or outpost. as for your frigate roaming gang objection the last 100 man AF fleet i saw in providence just after the AF changes got their butts handed to them in ywso by a batleship fleet i think it was or maby hac's roaming fleets i see daily are cruiser sized targets and above in the main. sometimes frigs but not often.
i still dont see any real obstical to the idea.... |
Trenc Amaroem
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:33:00 -
[80] - Quote
Here is my specific objection so that you can stop getting sidetracked on things that I am not talking about: I enjoy flying in frigate roams with new players. Adding gate guns to a region and anchoring a few bubbles around each gate would mean that I would lose 1 - 2 rifters to gate guns as they burned out of bubbles each jump. That is what I believe is broken. |
|
Sollana
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
191
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 22:43:00 -
[81] - Quote
OrangeRed wrote:How would you see gate guns working in tandem with bubbling in gates? Would this not remove all small ships from 0.0? Would this not create a true entry level for new players in that they must now be able to tank gate guns before they can participate in 0.0 pvp? Is this your intent?
Gate guns was just spit balling, Gate guns I can see as an Issue and a detriment to gate camps.
Stations and Pos's being a harder nut to crack with an extensive and effect arsenal, are not. And in my opinion be a benefit to the game. |
Sollana
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
191
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 22:47:00 -
[82] - Quote
Trenc Amaroem wrote:Here is my specific objection so that you can stop getting sidetracked on things that I am not talking about: I enjoy flying in frigate roams with new players. Adding gate guns to a region and anchoring a few bubbles around each gate would mean that I would lose 1 - 2 rifters to gate guns as they burned out of bubbles each jump. That is what I believe is broken.
Please accept an apology from Seer, his brain is broken and bitter .
With the lock times of pos modules as a base line for proposed gate/station guns, frigates would have no issue escaping unharmed.
This could be infact a reason to use small fast movers, rather than slow bulky battleships. Bring back the nano age ??
|
Sollana
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
191
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 22:48:00 -
[83] - Quote
OrangeRed wrote:All that gate guns would accomplish is to deter small gang fights and would make the region no easier to defend against invaders as six guns on a gate will be easily incapped by a large fleet. It's a broken idea.
I agree all initial Ideas tend to seem broken, but with a sound minded CSM working with CCP, a via method of increasing system defences can be thought through. |
Saracha
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 23:12:00 -
[84] - Quote
Er I have a have a few issues that if you could address it be great.
Sollana wrote: But Civilisation is not perfect, currently EVE does not allow us to protect our homes, unless we use ships?? Although this can produce some great fights, the old system before Dominion gave the defenders a chance, and I propose that as part of Sovereignty upgrades Station and Gate defenses should be onlined.
Could you clarify this for me? It seems like you want to be able to just win fights without showing up for them? And what are you talking about wen you reference Dominion, "Dominion gave defenders a chance"? In sov warfare the greatest power is in the hands of the defenders.
Sollana wrote: Having armaments in position on gates and station, can be increase with upgrades in the Ihub and be based on sov level (1 battery per gate per level for instance, double that for the station). this would also add a new dynamic to gate camping reds blockading a system, as currently there is no risk in 0.0.
So let me get this straight, your solution to add risk to 0.0 is to add station and gate guns? There is a little problem with this in that it would discourage small gang warfare. Currently a large part of the risk of 0.0 is the small fast roaming gangs. These gangs frequently engage on either gates or stations. Adding guns would just hinder this.
Sollana wrote:
Another example of my issues is Time Dialation. although this is a great Idea, why is TD taken from populated systems.
Last night a section of Providence was down to 10% TD, all because of a battle in Branch, There are issues here, especially when you can travel through delve, catch and cure aand have completely empty constellations.
You appear to be dangerously misinformed. TiDi operates on a node basis, these nodes tend to be clustered, typically in the same constellation, if there was TiDi in providence it is because someone in providence caused it. The reasons for this are technical, Tidi would not function on a per system basis. |
entroncas
Catalina Operations and Logistics Division Supernova Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 23:33:00 -
[85] - Quote
Saracha wrote:Er I have a have a few issues that if you could address it be great. Sollana wrote: But Civilisation is not perfect, currently EVE does not allow us to protect our homes, unless we use ships?? Although this can produce some great fights, the old system before Dominion gave the defenders a chance, and I propose that as part of Sovereignty upgrades Station and Gate defenses should be onlined.
Could you clarify this for me? It seems like you want to be able to just win fights without showing up for them? And what are you talking about wen you reference Dominion, "Dominion gave defenders a chance"? In sov warfare the greatest power is in the hands of the defenders. [
dominion was the expansion who changed the sov mechanics.
Saracha wrote: Sollana wrote:
Another example of my issues is Time Dialation. although this is a great Idea, why is TD taken from populated systems.
Last night a section of Providence was down to 10% TD, all because of a battle in Branch, There are issues here, especially when you can travel through delve, catch and cure aand have completely empty constellations.
You appear to be dangerously misinformed. TiDi operates on a node basis, these nodes tend to be clustered, typically in the same constellation, if there was TiDi in providence it is because someone in providence caused it. The reasons for this are technical, Tidi would not function on a per system basis. [
well according to dev blog your theory go down in there and i will quote part of the blog:
"While IGÇÖm here, I want to address another common criticism of TiDi GÇô that itGÇÖs a node-level thing, which causes solar systems potentially far away from the fight to be effected."
it seems it's you who is a bit misinformed.
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3412 |
Hermann Krieger
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 23:40:00 -
[86] - Quote
Sollana wrote:Other points I would like to add to my manifesto.
AFK cloaking. A valid tactic or just bullying and harrassment.
Also there should be a method to hunt cloaky ships, we all watched war movies of destroyers hunting submarines, is this not the same. Give destroyers (space charges) that launches micro mines which travel out to a maximum distance based on skills and meta value of module. These micro mines then either explode if the contact any ship or reach maximum range. They do no actual damage but like the warp scrambler they disable the cloaking device for a complete cycle.
Discuss
This is a brilliant idea. You've got my vote. |
Trenc Amaroem
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 00:21:00 -
[87] - Quote
Sollana wrote: With the lock times of pos modules as a base line for proposed gate/station guns, frigates would have no issue escaping unharmed.
This could be infact a reason to use small fast movers, rather than slow bulky battleships. Bring back the nano age ??
I can easily anchor enough bubbles on a gate that a new player in a frigate with a mwd will not burn out of the bubble before being targeted and shot. What is worse is that with that change frigates can no longer engage on gates like in lowsec. I don't see that at a positive to new player gameplay. |
Draughnor
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 00:51:00 -
[88] - Quote
+1 |
Zawisza Black
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 01:07:00 -
[89] - Quote
+1 For Sol
1) Cloak afk camping systems needs to have some drawback or cost to it. It unduly rewards solitary trolls and seems like a huge unnecessary drag on the eve economy. It should take teamwork to dampen the economic output of a null system not one afk idiot.
2) Like the idea of station guns - they would lower station games and station camps which are not fun methods of pvp. |
Ta'Amok
Regnum-Irae Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 04:06:00 -
[90] - Quote
+1
POS defensive does need balancing.
The station/gate guns should be an option and would also be an incentive to hold a system longer to get some defensive capabilities. That would also encourage the use of fleets to get a cov ops frig into a system and hot drop a fleet to start an assault in a system., rather than just using them to attack single targets in systems with someone's neut alt lighting the cyno.
Ta'Amok |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |