|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 19 post(s) |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 14:35:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Shasz Is there a limit to only one SBU per stargate?
If so, it sounds like placing your own defensive SBU at 50% of the gates would add one more layer of defense to holding sov - at least for systems with an even number of stargates. And even for the odd-numbered gate systems, it would force attackers to put the SBUs where you want them.
There is a thread in the test-server forum about that.
Everyone can online SBUs, so if the defenders place their own SBUs at 50% of the gates and not onlining them, then they do the attackers some favour because they don't need to pay the couple hundred mil for each SBU
However ... if they online them and start the (6h ?) counter they can then always offline them once online, interrupting the system vulnerability. I think this is going to be discussed internally already. An easy solution would be that you cannot offline a SBU once it got online.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:11:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Slobodanka Just one question on SBU spamming: Is it possible (under current mechanics) for an alliance to place it's own (lets say an alt alliance or alliance created specially for that reason) SBUs, thus denying attackers to even anchor and online theirs? Like 33% alliance 1, 33% alliance 2 and 33% allaince 3. Neither will have 51% so system should be safe?
Everyone can online SBU regardless who anchored them.
The ownership of the SBUs doesn't matter for breaking invulnerability. Only the total amount of SBUs do count.
But a question...
If the attacker is successful in capturing the system and planting their own TCU and gaining sov, what happened then with the SBUs? Will the go offline and can they be collected afterwards? Will the explode and just vanish? What happens to them?
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:44:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Quesa I'm a bit displeased that the new structures are too large to be transported in even a maxed out JF. This seems like the addition of artificial hindrances to those alliances who live at the very outskirts of New Eden.
Consider that any attacker will face the same problems and therefore will think twice or even more often if it is really worth to attack there.
So the longer distance and higher logistics will be more annoying. But they give you the benefit that it gives you also more protection - at least a bit more. Because people do not like increased logistics and will attack elsewhere first.
The 'it is unfair because it means more logistics for us' is only a narrow view of the situation and doesn't take into account the side-effects.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 10:20:00 -
[4]
What I dislike especially at this expansion is the complete discarding of the sandbox approach. Oh CCP, why did you do that?
Take for example the TCU's. They are huge fat targets, but you cannot shoot them. Why not? We SHOULD be able to shoot and hit them. A sandbox approach would allow us to shoot at everything we see with some effect. The theme-park approach allows you to do only those things which the designers thought you should be allowed to do - and everything else is impossible. Same with the grinding and levelling for upgrades in the system. A sandbox approach would have automatically updated the space without the need to instally anything and smoothly would count every little effort into improvement of the system. Theme park, again, artificial and allows you only to do what the designers want you to do, grinding and levelling. I could go on like this. But the conclusion is clear: THE SANDBOX IS DEAD!
Also the sov changes of this expansion completely ignore in-game logic and consistency. As example, take again the TCU's. They are somehow magically immune to get locked (not sure about smartbombs though). The explanation on Sisi goes that some sort of miracle defence protocols disables the ship's capabilities to specifically lock this target. I didn't know that a target needs to agree to get locked ... And also several points to that idiotic explanation: a) if such protocols would exist, why don't have anyone else them? Bribing/threatening the manufacturers of those protocols shouldn't be difficult. Reverse engineering neither. b) Why can pod pilots who are semi-gods! control every aspect of the ship but are unable to do something simple as locking a huge target? c) why can't we just part a fake-target 1m away from the TCU, shot at the fake target and damage the TCU this way? -> It all makes NO sense.
A solution for making the sov system consistant would be that each gate powers the TCU to a certain degree (the power drawn from the gates and the space distortions there would make it possible for the TCU to have 99.9% resitances on shields and armor). If the enemy places power disruptors (the SBU's) at enough gates, the TCU would lack power and become vulnerable - unless the TCU can get backup power from the IHub and/or a station. In that case the IHub and station needs to be shot down and captured first too. Now, how difficult would it be to come up with such a story? It takes only A LITTLE EFFORT and the will to do so. IT IS NOT TO LATE! The story behind the TCUs, SBU and such can still be changed (with a little bit of game mechanic changes, 99.9% resistance instead of total immunity etc). Consider that, make it at least a little bit less horribly aritifical.
The long term goal of CCP is to make the best available sci-fi 'simulator' ever. It won't go anywhere if they fail at doing such a simple task as making their expansions consistent within their own game universe.
It all is just another sad thing. It shows to me that CCP has really lost its true spirit and goal. They seems to become just another mmo company, nothing special dreams and visions any more.
|
|
|
|