| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adunh Slavy
   |
Posted - 2009.10.31 20:19:00 -
[1]
It's rather fun and appears to be balanced, granted the timers, onlining and such, are short on SiSi.
It would be good if the onlining of a FLAG sent mail as well as the pop-up. I understand onling a FLAG will be significantly longer and suspect some may not pay the initial bill as soon as they online one, mail would help across time zones and that "cerebral" bit that has been stated a few times.
Not sure how long the onling is going to be for a STOP, but one player in a blockade runner could cause havoc if they are too short.
Would be nice on the sov window, stations/outposts frame, if we could see which systems are vulnerable/contested, add way point, book mark, show on map etc, on a right click menu would be nice too.
It is not quite clear what can be done once a system is "vulnerable", a few systems were brought into this state, but the Hub and FLAGs were invulnerable, perhaps there is a timer in this regard of which I am unaware.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 20:50:00 -
[2]
all seems to be fairly balanced
Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
YanniMorePlz
Caldari
Debitum Naturae
THE KLINGONS
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 23:55:00 -
[3]
Edited by: YanniMorePlz on 31/10/2009 23:55:17
I would like to bring up two points of interest in the new system I have noticed.
First of all, as you all know you can only anchor one STOP at each gate. So the system in which I have claimed SOV in I have gone around and anchored STOPs at all the gates so that if anyone were to invade, they need to kill those first then anchor their own.
I do not know if this was intended by CCP, but if it is, it is a extra layer of protection you can give your system I guess.
Secondly, when I onlined my STOPs I made my own FLAG vulnerable. Now this simply a terrible idea, for a spy in your alliance (and we all have them) could come in and online those STOPs and launch a sneak attack on the FLAG. So at the very least this needs to be looked into.
Thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------
captain kikaz > comon guys its 1 am in the morning and im at least frosty! ... damn my account just expired |
Cmd BenJames
Gallente
Power Seed Enterprises
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 00:12:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Cmd BenJames on 01/11/2009 00:12:05
Basically means you have to be more vigilant with your systems, having to keep an eye on every last one of them instead of lazing around waiting for that POS under attack mail.
The STOPS at each gate does add a layer of protection to it, but does make you more succeptable from attack within your own alliance. Yet not anchoring them takes away a layer of protection but atleast you get more of a time to stop them being properly onlined.
|
YanniMorePlz
Caldari
Debitum Naturae
THE KLINGONS
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 01:17:00 -
[5]
Aye, I was thinking more along the lines of getting "BoBed" and having some individual come in and knock out all the SOV in one go.
--------------------------------------------------
captain kikaz > comon guys its 1 am in the morning and im at least frosty! ... damn my account just expired |
Kaahles
Kentucky Fried Capitals
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 02:25:00 -
[6]
Basically anchoring and onlining STOPs to disrupt your own alliances sovereignty in a system is the same thing as currently on TQ if someone with the appropriate roles deactivates the „claiming“ option on your POS or simply offlines them all than your sovereignty is also gone. Technically the same thing just maybe a little more difficult since you have to actually get the modules into the system(s) but I don’t see a real issue there. It’s nothing we already have just in a slightly different form.
-----------------------------
OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!
Contract me all your stuff so I can save it! |
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 02:48:00 -
[7]
yeah but u get 12 hours to reonline and refight for sov and nearly a week to take control of system to
Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 07:07:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 01/11/2009 07:08:10
 Originally by: Kaahles
Basically anchoring and onlining STOPs to disrupt your own alliances sovereignty in a system is the same thing as currently on TQ if someone with the appropriate roles deactivates the äclaimingô option on your POS or simply offlines them all than your sovereignty is also gone. Technically the same thing just maybe a little more difficult since you have to actually get the modules into the system(s) but I donÆt see a real issue there. ItÆs nothing we already have just in a slightly different form.
You'd think so, but not really. Typically you would have multiple corps with many POSes in each system (atleast for systems you care about and use) so no one spy in a single corp can go de-sov a system because ideally each corp that anchors a POS will click the sov checkmark and you cant modify other corps sov checkers.
Arguably, this is a downside to the new system: single points of failure. Then again, if its a spy, they'd be better off pulling the BOB/CVA trick and just disbanding the entire alliance, even if geting a spy into the holding corp with appropriate roles is far more difficult. Edit: more diffiult, but it might also be difficult to get appropriate POS roles in the corp you are spying in.
------------------------
Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |