Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
Kell Braugh
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 20:11:00 -
[211]
Edited by: Kell Braugh on 13/01/2010 20:16:29 Edited by: Kell Braugh on 13/01/2010 20:15:34 TBH, the sov mechanics should mimic (somewhat) the occupancy mechanics that faction warfare uses.
I think tying in restricted-ship class deadspaces (frigates only, cruisers only, T2 cruisers and below, BS and below, Captials and below) and the 'holding' of a structure by proximity (ala a capture and hold system) would encourage the massive battle to get a bit more splintered.. These deadspaces would be spawned and continue to spawn as long as SBUs were in place and online in a system in the constellation. Non-covert ops cloaking devices should be disabled (due to spatial phenomenon of course) and you should also be required to have the ship-class of the deadspace-class involved, so a sniper HAC gang can't take a BS deadspace, or capital deadspace.
The 5 different 'classes' of deadspaces would be randomly seeded, throughout the day, throughout the constellation-- each having an increasingly greater value. i.e. a frigate-class deadspace 'capture' is worth 5 points, a cruiser-class is 10, etc.
With this basis, you could make it be that forces would be forced to fragment-- as you would have to both 'attack' and 'defend' multiple deadspaces, simultaneously.
This is how 'traditional' warfare (whatever that really means in the day and age of drone planes carrying hellfires) occurs... You have a line/cloud on a map, not a dingle damn dot that one side is all firing at whilst the other side is 'repping'. The fight should happen in this 'fog of war', not just on a single grid.
Throughout the siege, the points should tally up and against each other. Attackers get points, defenders take away points. Once a certain level of points is held by the attacker (more points needed if a iHub/station exists) The attackers SBUs become invulnerable for 24 hours. This starts the 'destruction phase' where all structures in the target system are vulnerable, including stations. Each structure has a SINGLE ref timer of max 16 +/- 3 hours hours. Once a (any) structure (ihub/station/tcu) has come out of ref, SBUs are vulnerable and can be attacked by defenders. Attackers may destroy the structures left/take station and defenders may attack the SBUs, if defenders hit the sbu's they get reff'ed for 24 hours and all structures in system are invuln (able to be repped? i dunno ), otherwise, the attackers win.
Summary: It requires a form of 'spread over the constellation' control by one side before structures are vulnerable along with the ability for defenders to have a say and defend their space in (hopefully) not so blobby environments.
Only thing (ok, not only, but eh) that requires some thought is how to including allies (outside the attacker/defenders alliance) into the tallies... but its a start imo and gets rid of today's crap mechanics and its 17 ref timers. -
Originally by: Mynas Atoch Our island is P-2, and its not yours.
03:00:35 Notify The station P2TTL Northern Monkey Pain Train has been captured by Madhatters Inc. corporation! |
mechtech
SRS Industries SRS.
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 21:49:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Kell Braugh Edited by: Kell Braugh on 13/01/2010 20:16:29 Edited by: Kell Braugh on 13/01/2010 20:15:34 TBH, the sov mechanics should mimic (somewhat) the occupancy mechanics that faction warfare uses.
I think tying in restricted-ship class deadspaces (frigates only, cruisers only, T2 cruisers and below, BS and below, Captials and below) and the 'holding' of a structure by proximity (ala a capture and hold system) would encourage the massive battle to get a bit more splintered.. These deadspaces would be spawned and continue to spawn as long as SBUs were in place and online in a system in the constellation. Non-covert ops cloaking devices should be disabled (due to spatial phenomenon of course) and you should also be required to have the ship-class of the deadspace-class involved, so a sniper HAC gang can't take a BS deadspace, or capital deadspace.
The 5 different 'classes' of deadspaces would be randomly seeded, throughout the day, throughout the constellation-- each having an increasingly greater value. i.e. a frigate-class deadspace 'capture' is worth 5 points, a cruiser-class is 10, etc.
With this basis, you could make it be that forces would be forced to fragment-- as you would have to both 'attack' and 'defend' multiple deadspaces, simultaneously.
This is how 'traditional' warfare (whatever that really means in the day and age of drone planes carrying hellfires) occurs... You have a line/cloud on a map, not a dingle damn dot that one side is all firing at whilst the other side is 'repping'. The fight should happen in this 'fog of war', not just on a single grid.
Throughout the siege, the points should tally up and against each other. Attackers get points, defenders take away points. Once a certain level of points is held by the attacker (more points needed if a iHub/station exists) The attackers SBUs become invulnerable for 24 hours. This starts the 'destruction phase' where all structures in the target system are vulnerable, including stations. Each structure has a SINGLE ref timer of max 16 +/- 3 hours hours. Once a (any) structure (ihub/station/tcu) has come out of ref, SBUs are vulnerable and can be attacked by defenders. Attackers may destroy the structures left/take station and defenders may attack the SBUs, if defenders hit the sbu's they get reff'ed for 24 hours and all structures in system are invuln (able to be repped? i dunno ), otherwise, the attackers win.
Summary: It requires a form of 'spread over the constellation' control by one side before structures are vulnerable along with the ability for defenders to have a say and defend their space in (hopefully) not so blobby environments.
Only thing (ok, not only, but eh) that requires some thought is how to including allies (outside the attacker/defenders alliance) into the tallies... but its a start imo and gets rid of today's crap mechanics and its 17 ref timers.
I agree with more of a control point based approach to sov, but IMO there shouldn't be any ship restrictions at all in the sov system. 0.0 is a no holds barred free for all, and arbitrary ship restrictions would really kill the spirit of 0.0 warfare. It would feel like you're fighting in an artificial "arena".
|
gigawatt
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 02:58:00 -
[213]
i recommend to remove all "invulnerable" states for all objects completely.
just think what this will do the whole system. and where it will lead.
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:36:00 -
[214]
Is there any documentation of this new sov system anywhere? The Eve manual doesn't exist anymore and just links to the Eve wiki. THe Eve wiki just contains links to the Dev blogs. The Dev blogs were written before the system went live and it's been patched since then anyway so firstly they are wrong, and secondly they contain no details at all. Like all this talk of timers and variance and what have you, no mention of any of that in the Dev blogs the wiki links to.
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 17:29:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 15/01/2010 17:30:09
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Is there any documentation of this new sov system anywhere?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Sovereignty_(Mechanics)
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 03:53:00 -
[216]
Many thanks. I feel a bit stupid but that wiki confuses the hell out of me. Although you've provided me link to a Sovereignty Guide there is no entry for Sovereignty in the Guides section. There is an Alliance Warfare section and it has its own Obtaining Sovereignty section which consists of a single paragraph, it also contains multiple Sovereignty links but they all link to the Sovereignty skill database entry here http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Sovereignty. Typing Sovereignty into the Search box also leads to the same useless database entry.
After about half an hour I finally found a link to a Sovereignty (disambiguation) topic from the Alliance Warfare page and from there to the link you provided.
|
Ruafo
Minmatar r.evolution 8 Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 19:07:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Ruafo on 16/01/2010 19:11:15 Edited by: Ruafo on 16/01/2010 19:09:42 Edited by: Ruafo on 16/01/2010 19:08:52 Edited by: Ruafo on 16/01/2010 19:08:09 After we tested the new sov. mechanics for some weeks now, i see some really good thinks and some bad thinks.
First the new system with the sbus and outpos/ihub engagment/defence points is ****ing amazing, the fights that spread over that points in the engagments, giving me the best large scale pvp experience i ever had in any game.
It's so cool that i stay awaken on weekends to get those fights. And that is also the problem! We can't life without sleep :)
The timers, it's nearly impossible to dictate the fight as aggressor and under the week the experience i get from that mechanics are even worser than before Dominion, because in the past we had something to do until the fight, we had to kitte the towers. It was boring but at least it was something. Now we enter the system placing the sbus and after they are online and the outpost and ihub is shot theres nothing to do. but we can't leave the system and shoot another one, because we have to keep control over the system otherwise we are probably not able to get back in , in time. So we are looking at the stars and are bored.
Changing the random timer is not working not in the one either on the other side. If we have to stay in that system give us work to do. Give us the chance to manipulate the timers to our favour in some way.
At the moment we speak about 4 battles which are fought in the defenders prime time and if he just win the last twice he makes the other battles senseless.
I was suggesting some kitting mechaniks but: I just got an new idea while i wrotte that stuff above. Increase the random time spawn if the ihub/outpost get reinforced in the same or the next downtime cycle again after the full safing. So the defender have to fight at least one time in the attackers timezone to don't lose control over their timing abilities.
What do you think?
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 11:40:00 -
[218]
Give the SBUs also a "reinforce timer", and calculate the exit time of structures based on a combination of the reinforce timers.
The attackers decide the first battle's time, when they set the SBUs.
The defenders decide the second battle's time (first reinforce cycle): Their reinforce timer +/- variance.
And the third battle, 2nd reinforce timer, is calculated as the "middle" of the two reinforce timers, +/- variance.
(Yes, I count "second/third battle" individually for iHub and station)
A-Team sets SBU rf timer to 18:00, B-Team sets iHub timer to 8:00, the third battle happens at 13:00 +/- variance.
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 16:31:00 -
[219]
After some battles I came to the conclusion that we still need a system that forces attackers and defenders on different battlefields. Everybody knows this.
In order for the game to be enjoyable we need a mechanic that penalizes having too many people in the same grid or solar system.
Last night there has been a fight in 49- with something like 1400 people. Lag was terrible, and node crashed. And al that because the only winning strategy is to put as many pilots as you can on the same target. It is called fucus fire.
Right now, there is no reason to split forces between different objectives, even if one of the CCP aims with Dominion was forcing fleets to split.
In Eve focus fire is the most effective way to fight. It would be the most effective way to fight in every competition but over a certain scale usually it ceases to be the best tactic.
In real life armies and navies, forces are split for mainly 2 reason:
1) weakness of critical objectives; 2) lack of mobility.
So if you have to protect an important target you have to stand by it in order to be ready to fight for it, its survivability being very critical (because of its instrinsic weakness). And it makes no sense to call reinforcements from far away, because they will arrive too late (because of the mobility issue).
Right now all the structures that have any role in sovereignty conquest have a monstrous amount of hitpoints, and subcapital fleet and even non sieged capital fleet can be redeployed anywhere in a solar system within maximum 2 minutes. This is the complete opposite to what compels forces in real life to split.
So, what I suggest?
- Solution 1: work on fleet mobility(I like it best)
Leave all structure hitpoints as they are now, but instead of solar system based sovereignty consider only constellation based sovereignty.
If constellations are too big, just use another group-type of systems.
Attacker and defenders have to split over many systems, and so their mobility is reduced if confronted with the size of the battlefield.
You will need to control more systems than your opponent. The side that has the higher scores gains sovereignty of the constellation.
This is important: there will be only constellation-wide reinforcement timers, with all SBUs, outpost and iHUB exiting reinforced mode at the same time. The entrance in reinforced mode could happen in many ways, could be when all systems in the constellation have been reinforced.
- Solution 2: work on weakness of strategical structures
This solution will probably work only when CCP will have a code that allow running different grids in the same solarsystem on different cores of the same CPU.
In this situation, mobility of fleets is not hampered but the hitpoints of all the stuff are dreastically reduced, so that structures are much faster to repair and to destroy. Maybe you could forbid using doomsday devices on those objectives.
So moving your entire fleet on a single target will not be effective, you'll have to protect all your critical objectives at once.
Of course, this would be a mess and it would be reasonable only if the penalties for loosing one of these fragile structure are mitigated up to the right amount: for example if the SBUs are destroyed the iHUB does not became suddenly invulnerable but there is a countdown of something like 60 seconds during which a new SBUs must be anchored, and goes online without delay.
Note that these ideas just aim to reduce the blobbing. I fully support the idea of having reinforcement timers on the SBUs too, that could feed into the mechanic that controls the global reinforcement timer, or any idea that gives the attacker more chances and reduces the need of alarm clock operations, like increasing the variance.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 17:51:00 -
[220]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 21/12/2009 14:26:07
Here are a few changes that Abathur and I have applied today, which we're aiming to get in for 1.1:
- Reinforcement variance raised to +/- 3 hours on all structures
- Increased SBU resistances to 50% across the board (armor/shields)
- Increased the hitpoints of the TCU and SBU (across the board for TCUs, structure for SBUs)
- Cut down online timer of TCU to 8 hours
Thank you for your feedback, we'll keep watching.
There have been fights in 49- over sov, and a couple of observations:
- Increasing timer variance is dangerous, as you have mentioned. If it's increased too much, winning sov becomes a lottery, rather than a contest.
- SBU EHP should stay near where they are, or be lower. In the time the attacker takes to shoot just armor or structure on the IHUB or station, the defenders may have to destroy 2 or more SBUs. Given equal DPS the defenders should be able to at least destroy 2 SBUs in the same time it takes the attacker to reinforce/destroy the ihub or station, as this is the number of SBUs which must be destroyed in the most common case (3 or 4 gate system).
- There seems to be a bug where the IHUB is shootable 30s before the SBUs (maybe only in high lag). This needs to be fixed.
|
|
Tyreal Magnus
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 19:45:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Ruafo The timers, it's nearly impossible to dictate the fight as aggressor and under the week the experience i get from that mechanics are even worser than before Dominion, because in the past we had something to do until the fight, we had to kitte the towers. It was boring but at least it was something. Now we enter the system placing the sbus and after they are online and the outpost and ihub is shot theres nothing to do. but we can't leave the system and shoot another one, because we have to keep control over the system otherwise we are probably not able to get back in , in time. So we are looking at the stars and are bored.
Changing the random timer is not working not in the one either on the other side. If we have to stay in that system give us work to do. Give us the chance to manipulate the timers to our favour in some way.
There is plenty the attackers can do after you online your SBU's... if you think outside the box.
Go camp supply routes. Harass enemy ratters. Roam around space. Go attack another system.
or
Bring your supplies to your staging system. Mine. Rat. Spin in station.
I agree with your point, that there is nothing you can directly do in the contested system. But there are many ways to hurt your enemy without SBUs.
***I like to burn things :P*** |
Davor
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 20:40:00 -
[222]
Edited by: Davor on 18/01/2010 20:41:25
Originally by: Butter Dog
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
- Reinforcement variance raised to +/- 3 hours on all structures
- Increased SBU resistances to 50% across the board (armor/shields)
- Increased the hitpoints of the TCU and SBU (across the board for TCUs, structure for SBUs)
- Cut down online timer of TCU to 8 hours
Thank you for your feedback, we'll keep watching.
Encouraging changes, however I think the small increase in timer variance makes little practical difference, and won't allow 'timezone blur' as discussed.
I appreciate the need to be cautious but an increase to 4 hours would not have been reckless, and is significantly less than most people argue is needed.
Maybe you should fight an alliance from your own timezone instead of running to ccp and crying over how having to fight for a system is unfair for the aggressors.
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 22:39:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Tyreal Magnus ... there are many ways to hurt your enemy without SBUs.
First, we want more. Second, why can't we shoot and disable single upgrades? This would be a way to actually attack the enemy's economy with small gangs, and this would make worth attacking. with small gangs. Yes it's not really smart, it is better to find an enemy JF near a JB and kill it, but you know, it's not alway christmas.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 22:53:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Camios
Originally by: Tyreal Magnus ... there are many ways to hurt your enemy without SBUs.
First, we want more. Second, why can't we shoot and disable single upgrades?
You can. Hunt PvEers so they can't keep the index up.
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 23:54:00 -
[225]
Yes, that's a way. But I don't think it's enough. That's my point. The indices need 4 days of "doing nothing" before going down a single level, so you have to be constantly threat the system for 4 days in order to see a change. Too much work for a far too little achievement, I think.
|
Velda Chulai
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 02:14:00 -
[226]
Edited by: Velda Chulai on 19/01/2010 02:15:41 I've read a few things that I think should be addressed in this thread before it goes out of hand.
First, on the topic of spies beign burned to achieve strategic goals: It's not appropriate for CCP to scope their changes based on external game factors beyond timezones. Metagaming of any sort isn't their problem, and if you need to burn a spy to do something, that's no more their problem than a major corp theft or contract scam is.
Metagaming is never consistent - it happens in an unlimited number of ways. Metagaming happens and CCP can't possibly balance around it. The Earth, more or less, rotates at the same speed, and downtime is usually consistent.
Originally by: Camios ... The indices need 4 days of "doing nothing" before going down a single level, so you have to be constantly threat the system for 4 days in order to see a change. Too much work for a far too little achievement, I think.
When you've got an alliance filled with people looking for easy ganks, it's not a difficult job. If your alliances is willing to prosecute a war to its bitter end, it's not difficult at all to keep a station system camped from all sides. Besides the station camp, there are other organizational solutions for this problem. Use the tools you have in your alliance for a fix before reaching for a major shift in mechanics.
Finally, remember that the timezone challenges work both ways; if you have a Russian or European adversary as worthy as the goons, consider plonking away at their systems. The goon made a valid point: The Timezone war is one that you don't have to fight. Consider perusing diplomatic solutions before you rely on shifting the core balance of the game. Offer to lend support as needed. |
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 02:18:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Camios Yes, that's a way. But I don't think it's enough. That's my point. The indices need 4 days of "doing nothing" before going down a single level, so you have to be constantly threat the system for 4 days in order to see a change. Too much work for a far too little achievement, I think.
Being able to shoot ihub upgrades with a small gang is no good though. Too much ping-pong. You don't really want to have to rep up the upgrades you use on all your ihubs at the beginning of each day, do you?
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 08:28:00 -
[228]
There is one major problem and few minor problems with current sov system introduced in Dominion.
The major problem is, that RF timers + single structure (IHUB or outpost) provide far too high focus for the conflict making everyone and his dog to pile on that focus point melting the node, or at least into same starsystem.
The minor problems are tight RF windows (mainly inability to 'kite the tower' like with pos) and number of hitpoints on the structures that must be either killed by the attackers or afterwards repaired by the defenders. I can kinda see the reasoning behind those as it would be bad also if you can just warp 500 battleships to grid and one volley the structure.
Proposal for improvement (as there is no point of just complaining). Spread the conflict out a bit more. Make at least adjacent systems count in your equation. For example add somekind of fancy field generators in each system that provide some resitance to sov structures hitpoints and lower the hitpoints slightly. Make it so that systems next to the one under attack count also. Stick some structures in there that if destroyed remove some advantage from the defender - for example make the field generators more vunerable, etc etc. Ideally it would be harder to conquer system that is next to your already claimed systems forming a monolithic sov space and easier to to conquer system that is just sitting there. Having 'your' sov next to the system under attack in turn should offer some small advantages to the attacker. There would be reason then to go for weaker adjacent systems before just beelining straight for the stations in the region and ignoring everything else.
Granted shooting structures is not the best way of doing sov in the first place. Better than POS spam, but still sucks.
|
Azran Zala
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 15:13:00 -
[229]
How about moving SBU's to adjacent systems, to spread defence/offence of those out a bit, and less load on a single system?
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 17:24:00 -
[230]
Edited by: Camios on 19/01/2010 17:28:59 I would like to have the battle spreaded over a bigger cluster of systems so that moving from side to side of the cluster of stars will take some minutes for a BS. This will definitely force fleet to spread over many system and fix, once for all, lag.
When you want to contest a system, you have to contest a whole constellation at the same time.
|
|
Shoukei
Caldari Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 17:29:00 -
[231]
So what happened with making it impossible to hold 30+ stations due to upkeep costs? I don't see anyone dropping anything, and i certainly don't see a smaller alliances having a chance to take any station system, not even as renters.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 17:30:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Azran Zala How about moving SBU's to adjacent systems, to spread defence/offence of those out a bit, and less load on a single system?
No, this is terrible. The defenders would have to jump in and out of the contested system multiple times to get to all the SBUs -- just ask the NC how well that would work.
|
Wisp3
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 19:50:00 -
[233]
Edited by: Wisp3 on 19/01/2010 19:51:06 Looking for official clarification as I'm hearing conflicting reports as to how this works.
System has both I-Hub and Outpost. In order to make the TCU vulnerable, do I need to both destroy the I-Hub AND Capture the outpost, or will the TCU become vulnerable after capturing the outpost alone, while the I-Hub is still alive and well? Supposedly the CCP GM staff is stating that the latter is indeed how this works.
Offshoot question: Assuming that both the Outpost and the I-Hub need to be destroyed for the TCU to be vulnerable, lets assume that an attacker succeeds in taking an outpost but cannot destroy the I-Hub. How does a defender reclaim the lost station?
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 22:02:00 -
[234]
Edited by: Nobani on 19/01/2010 22:02:59
Originally by: Wisp3 The TCU is designed to be vulnerable following the capture of the station, regardless of the ihub's status. We apologize for not fully disclosing all sovereignty rules.
If you have any more issues, don't hesitate to contact us.
Best regards, Senior GM Gusto The EVE Online Customer Support Team
I re-read the dev blog from when this was announced, and it gives two different answers for what needs to happen in order for the TCU to be vulnerable if there's both an iHub and a station, and neither of them were "only the station matters".
As a follow up question: What happens if the station is captured, but before the TCU can be shot the SBUs are destroyed. Is the TCU still vulnerable?
|
Drakus
Minmatar Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 00:15:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 19/01/2010 17:56:48
No, this is terrible. The defenders would have to jump in and out of the contested system multiple times to get to all the SBUs -- just ask the NC how well that would work.
What 0.0, station holding alliance DOESN'T have a titan to JB them from wherever they are to where they need to be? Yes, you would have to jump from one system to another BUT you would never have to enter the contested system. Infact, the attacker would have to jump into the system you are in, inorder to defend the SBU. I like this idea becuase then you have to choose either to fight the hostile fleet, or go after the objects (Defender has to either kill attacker or kill the sbu's, Attacker would have to either defend the Sbu's or just go after the ihub/station)
An idea that was brought up in our forums is also making the SBU's non-offlinea-able. As an attacker there is really never a time when its a good thing to do, and this would make it so that if you decide to put them up in your own system you can't just offline them when say the station is 5min from being conquered. You'd have to spend time shooting the sbu's down, and the attacker would have the chance to defend said SBU's. Add that into the whole SBU's in a different system thing and you have a way of making it so that both sides have their own advantages.
I also think that SBU's should be invuln as long as the ihub or station are in RF mode.
|
kveldulfson
The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 02:18:00 -
[236]
To be honest the sov mechanics are just broken Lets use 49-u as an example
goons have no onlined there own sbu's in the system and reinforced their own iHub so the SBU's are invulnerable
when the iHub comes out of reinforced all they have to do is offline some sbu's and the siege ends and everything resets.
A clever use of the current mechanics it might be but which ever way you look at it the current mechanics just dont work! Its a Joke and I am sure goons and others are laughing themselves silly as they have found another clever way to exploit a bad game design.
CCP you really need to rework this and fast as its making sov wars a Joke.
Personaly I am not sure what you need to do to make it a user friendly and workable system. You could start with stopping an alliance dropping sbu's in a system they have sov in, but then they would just get an ally to do it for them. Good luck on fixing it just do it quickly!
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 11:38:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Nobani As a follow up question: What happens if the station is captured, but before the TCU can be shot the SBUs are destroyed. Is the TCU still vulnerable?
I have no practical experience, but it seem pretty clear that by destroying the SBU's, sovereignty is left intact and the TCU is safe.
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 11:50:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Wisp3 Offshoot question: Assuming that both the Outpost and the I-Hub need to be destroyed for the TCU to be vulnerable, lets assume that an attacker succeeds in taking an outpost but cannot destroy the I-Hub. How does a defender reclaim the lost station?
Afaik, evelopedia state that without sovereignty, the new owners of the station/outpost does not gain any reinforcement timer if attacked. So I assume that the sov owners (defenders), may simply assault the recently conquered station, thereby reclaiming it without any reinforcement timers kicking in. I guess the defenders can simply plow through the shield, armor and structure in one session.
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 16:52:00 -
[239]
Edited by: Nobani on 20/01/2010 16:53:52
Originally by: Drakus
Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 19/01/2010 17:56:48
No, this is terrible. The defenders would have to jump in and out of the contested system multiple times to get to all the SBUs -- just ask the NC how well that would work.
What 0.0, station holding alliance DOESN'T have a titan to JB them from wherever they are to where they need to be?
So now the defender has to set up staging POSes in four different systems, commit Titans to bridge their fleet around in potentially hostile space, some of which may be cynojammed, whereas the attacker can sit in one system attacking one target. Sounds totally fair.
Also, please provide the method to get a Titan into 4-0 from Delve without passing through Providence & Catch tia.
|
Drakus
Minmatar Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 17:40:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 20/01/2010 16:53:52
Originally by: Drakus
Originally by: Nobani Edited by: Nobani on 19/01/2010 17:56:48
No, this is terrible. The defenders would have to jump in and out of the contested system multiple times to get to all the SBUs -- just ask the NC how well that would work.
What 0.0, station holding alliance DOESN'T have a titan to JB them from wherever they are to where they need to be?
So now the defender has to set up staging POSes in four different systems, commit Titans to bridge their fleet around in potentially hostile space, some of which may be cynojammed, whereas the attacker can sit in one system attacking one target. Sounds totally fair.
Also, please provide the method to get a Titan into 4-0 from Delve without passing through Providence & Catch tia.
DEFENDING... means... YOUR SPACE. If you don't have atleast 1 pos in a system next door to a station system... well thats just weird to me.
And why would you choose to take the one down in 4-0? You only have to remove enough to make it less then 51% of the gates covered, you'd think you'd pick the systems that you control over one in hostile territory.. just my though... maybe i'm wrong..
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |