EVE Search - 0.0 Sov changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

0.0 Sov changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
I'm Down	Posted - 2010.05.19 07:39:00 - [1] I have had the horrible experience of fighting 2 major 0.0 sov wars since Dominion. I think the Jury verdict has become quite clear on the fact that Dominion is worse than POS warfare. But I think that the basic idea is fine, so long as some simple changes are made: 1) Reduce all Station HP: Shields by 50%, Armor reduced by 75%, and upgrade resistances to reflect similar HP. The only thing worse than shooting these things atm is repairing them. Neither side wants to sit there for hours on end repairing them when they already have to spend hours repairing other lame things like POS. Repairing does not generate fun... It hardly ever even provokes a fight. So quit wasting our time. 2) Reduce I-Hub timers to 1 day max, Reduce station timers to 1.5 days max. This means the current system of 6 days is reduced down to 3 days for a station system. This means way less camping, and less options for staggering timers in multiple systems. 3) Fix Titans. As predicted, it's really becoming wars about who has the most super capitals, and even worse who has the most Titans. Proliferation is at a ridiculous high for supers and it's only going to get worse. The only counter has been proven to be other supers. Atlas tried the Gank a Titan experience under the most promising of circumstances, they had a Leviathan at point blank with 0 cap and 0 hardeners activated. Their 60 capitals never got it below 50% shields before they lost too much firepower and his hardeners were able to activate/reps kicked in. Fix the DD so that Dreads in siege have a defensive advantage against them that does not allow titans to be the I win of fights. 4) Cyno Jammers are still a joke. It's way too easy to get a new one online. When a Cyno jammer dies, prevent it from being killed and replaced, force it to be repaired. 5) POS orbiting tactics are a joke. I've said this for 3 years now that it's a bad concept to have in game and an even worse concept now with Super capitals. Everyone knows it not a full proof tactic, but it is a very weighted tactic for the tower defender. This is bad considering they already have a massive advantage with the tower guns/ecm/mods. 6) Slow bomber ROF down. 1 minute 50 second reload with max skills is way to fast to make a new bombing run. Either cut down the Cargo capacity so they cannot do this as often w/o restocking, or cut down the rof to at least 5 minutes. Nothing else needs to change, but allow at least some chance of actually having a fight w/o needing to warp. Until you can do formation warping that doesn't stack a fleet spread across 200km on a 5km sphere when landing, bombers will continue to be overpowered. Also cyno landing spots need to be a 20km radius, not the current 5km. Those are probably the 5 most pressing issues with 0.0 sov.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.05.19 07:51:00 - [2] Originally by: I'm Down I have had the horrible experience of fighting 2 major 0.0 sov wars since Dominion. I think the Jury verdict has become quite clear on the fact that Dominion is worse than POS warfare. But I think that the basic idea is fine, so long as some simple changes are made: 1) Reduce all Station HP: Shields by 50%, Armor reduced by 75%, and upgrade resistances to reflect similar HP. The only thing worse than shooting these things atm is repairing them. Neither side wants to sit there for hours on end repairing them when they already have to spend hours repairing other lame things like POS. Repairing does not generate fun... It hardly ever even provokes a fight. So quit wasting our time. Why yes, I do agree defenders dont already have enough advantages, they urgently need another. (Disclaimer: no I dont)
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.05.19 07:55:00 - [3] I think the bombers are fine as anti blob measurement. especially as a smart fleet can easily avoid much damage with spreading out. we dont need to make it easier for the closely hugging blob again.
I'm Down	Posted - 2010.05.19 08:07:00 - [4] Originally by: darius mclever I think the bombers are fine as anti blob measurement. especially as a smart fleet can easily avoid much damage with spreading out. we dont need to make it easier for the closely hugging blob again. Didn't you post a month ago that you've never run bombers and therefore can't be too sure? There are very limited options for warping a fleet in and spreading out before bombs can hit. They're not good options, they're just all the game currently offers. Either that needs to change, or bomb launch times need to change. Quote: LOL Initiative guy talking about repairing stations as an advantage to the defender. Obviously you've never had to do this, particularly in the buggy armor state. Nobody wants to spend 3-4 hours of their life repairing a station. That's not an advantage for either side, that's just bad game mechanics. The game should not promote something so dull that it drives people away from the game.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.05.19 08:10:00 - [5] Originally by: I'm Down Originally by: darius mclever I think the bombers are fine as anti blob measurement. especially as a smart fleet can easily avoid much damage with spreading out. we dont need to make it easier for the closely hugging blob again. Didn't you post a month ago that you've never run bombers and therefore can't be too sure? There are very limited options for warping a fleet in and spreading out before bombs can hit. They're not good options, they're just all the game currently offers. Either that needs to change, or bomb launch times need to change. it was Torothanax, who wanted educate us on bombers although he never used them.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.05.19 09:44:00 - [6] Originally by: I'm Down Edited by: I''m Down on 19/05/2010 08:28:02 Originally by: darius mclever I think the bombers are fine as anti blob measurement. especially as a smart fleet can easily avoid much damage with spreading out. we dont need to make it easier for the closely hugging blob again. Didn't you post a month ago that you've never run bombers and therefore can't be too sure? There are very limited options for warping a fleet in and spreading out before bombs can hit. They're not good options, they're just all the game currently offers. Either that needs to change, or bomb launch times need to change. Quote: LOL Initiative guy talking about repairing stations as an advantage to the defender. Obviously you've never had to do this, particularly in the buggy armor state. Nobody wants to spend 3-4 hours of their life repairing a station. That's not an advantage for either side, that's just bad game mechanics. The game should not promote something so dull that it drives people away from the game. CAOD -> that way. Keep your smacktalk in there please. If you want hubs and stations to have fewer hitpoints, that's fine by me. But there's absolutely no excuse to make it even easier for the defender to ignore the first few fights and only turn up for the last one. There are few enough penalties for the defender losing or not defending as it is.
Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.05.19 10:27:00 - [7] Quote: The only thing worse than shooting these things atm is repairing them This is one thing I can't agree with. If the attacker brings out the effort to do damage to it, you should have to put effort into repairing it. I do agree with 2, 3, 4 and 5, though. I can't agree with 6 because I believe bombers are balanced as is already (a normal bomber can only stock four bombs at a time). ___
I'm Down	Posted - 2010.05.19 10:43:00 - [8] Originally by: Grarr Dexx Quote: The only thing worse than shooting these things atm is repairing them This is one thing I can't agree with. If the attacker brings out the effort to do damage to it, you should have to put effort into repairing it. I do agree with 2, 3, 4 and 5, though. I can't agree with 6 because I believe bombers are balanced as is already (a normal bomber can only stock four bombs at a time). You're pigeon holing stations by saying it must take the same amount of time to repair as it does to siege... but it currently doesn't. Armor triage is a very limited use tool which is why it's so unlikey most pilots have it. Compared to dreads, which have a variety of functions for use, including combat, sieging towers, sieging stations, etc, and you realize the imbalance. Most carrier pilots spend a lot of time training for shield triage, b/c for years, that's been what's important. For the most part, that still is what's important. 50 dreads can nearly 1 cycle a station's armor... 10 minutes. 10 triage armor carriers with max skills and a gang bonus can't even repair it in 40 minutes. Since a Triage carrier with 4 reps is about equal to 16 normal carriers, you can virtually write off normal carriers repairing it. Honestly, I could do without the resistances too, but problem with that is the suicide effect similar to what was happening with SBU's. And speaking of which, Original post updated to include change to SBU.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.05.19 10:58:00 - [9] uhm ... armor triage? did i miss anything? I always thought the triage module affects both equally ... and I am pretty sure that almost every carrier pilot has capital remote armor reps trained aswell. as 3 out of 4 carriers are usually armor tanked. also repping armor of pos modules .... but please correct me when i am wrong.
Javajunky	Posted - 2010.05.19 13:13:00 - [10] Might want to break out specific ideas and into sepearate threads so each one can be addressed separately. This could turn into a very long thread with varying comments where it's going to be hard to follow specific subject matter people would want to vote on. Just my 0.02ISK.

Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.19 15:07:00 - [11] Edited by: Bagehi on 19/05/2010 15:10:55 Originally by: darius mclever uhm ... armor triage? did i miss anything? I always thought the triage module affects both equally ... and I am pretty sure that almost every carrier pilot has capital remote armor reps trained aswell. as 3 out of 4 carriers are usually armor tanked. also repping armor of pos modules .... but please correct me when i am wrong. You are correct. The OP is comparing two things that aren't equal: 50 dreads v 10 carriers It doesn't take much to see why 10 carriers wouldn't be on par with 50 dreads. EDIT: As someone who has shot too many POSs, I like the new sov mechanic. I don't like the lag. I still don't like POSs. As POSs remain the passive income source for alliances (as well as the location to jump fleets in and safe fleets up), they remain the primary target of alliance fleets. This signature is useless, but it is red.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.05.19 15:32:00 - [12] ok then i have a number question for the op: if 50 sieged dreads need about 1 siege cycle to reinforce a station, how long would it take them without siege? and if 10 triage carrier need 40minutes to rep armor of the station back up, how long would it take 50 triage carriers to rep it back up? because imho that are the numbers you should compare. and yes i think CCP was expecting to see fights when the defender try to repair the station. didnt work out it seems. I think not a single region fell so far where the defenders were really fighting back. It was either wallet issues or the defender retreating. Maybe a system similar to taking systems in FW would help the whole blob warfare. Or having the carebear system indeces affecting the system security level... that way you could break sov levels with roaming gangs ... that way you might see sov level 4 dropping because there wasnt enough mining/ratting and you loose your cyno jammer. Shooting structures for sov is utterly boring.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.19 17:11:00 - [13] Originally by: I'm Down 50 dreads can nearly 1 cycle a station's armor... 10 minutes. 10 triage armor carriers with max skills and a gang bonus can't even repair it in 40 minutes. So 50 dreads kill it in 10 minutes, and 50 triage carriers rep it in 8. In other words, what you're saying is that if you have gangs of equal size, the carriers rep faster than the dreads DPS. And you think the carriers need the buff here.
I'm Down	Posted - 2010.05.19 21:04:00 - [14] Edited by: I''m Down on 19/05/2010 21:08:46 Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 19/05/2010 15:59:31 Originally by: darius mclever uhm ... armor triage? did i miss anything? I always thought the triage module affects both equally ... and I am pretty sure that almost every carrier pilot has capital remote armor reps trained aswell. as 3 out of 4 carriers are usually armor tanked. also repping armor of pos modules .... but please correct me when i am wrong. You are correct. The OP is comparing two things that aren't equal: 50 dreads v 10 carriers It doesn't take much to see why 10 carriers wouldn't be on par with 50 dreads. EDIT: As someone who has shot too many POSs, I like the new sov mechanic better than the old one. I don't like the lag. I still don't like POSs. As POSs remain the passive income source for alliances (as well as the location to jump fleets in and safe fleets up), they remain the primary target of alliance fleets. Sov warfare is better, but still needs work. No, I'm stating what is practical to expect in a large fleet in todays eve. Yes you can triage either armor or shields if you have both trained... Most pilots do not. Either requires the prerequisite of remote armor or remote shields to 5. Whether there's logic or not for why people do or don't have it, it's just a fact that most will not train armor triage. This game is not made based on the What ifs, it's based on the practical nature of humans. Nobody is going to train armor triage just for the rare instance that they have to repair a station or I-hub. 90% of 0.0 now has absolutely no reason to train armor triage b/c stations are not threatened. However, POS are threatened everywhere, every day. Hence the high likelihood of shield triage pilots. Can that change in the future, absolutely, but unlikely. Something you guys also fail to consider: Carriers are the only practical way to repair a station/hub. Every ship in the game including carriers are practical for reinforcing them. So how is that balanced?
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.05.19 21:33:00 - [15] could you please fix your terminology... there is no armor triage or shield triage skill. and your argument is still largely flawed as for fleet fights most people armor tank their carrier. also the armor tanked titans and motherships are seen very often. so I am very very sure that most carrier pilots will have capital remote armor rep skills or atleast you will find as many carrier pilots with remote armor repair skills as you will find with remote shield transfer skills. so please fix your terminology and try to find a better argument. thanks in advance.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.19 21:44:00 - [16] You don't train armor and triage skills for repping stations, you train them for repping ships. I hear a lot of ships armor tank.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.20 17:28:00 - [17] Capital Armor RR is so much more preferred that Chimeras (which get shield RR bonuses, not armor RR) are flown with armor RR fitted. This signature is useless, but it is red.
davet517 Raata Invicti Reckoning.	Posted - 2010.05.20 21:28:00 - [18] Any sovereignty system that is based on massive DPS overcoming massive HP is going to devolve into lag fests and boring grinds of one kind or another. Sov shouldn't be based on shooting structures according to set timers at all. You can change the names and shapes of the toys on the field all you like, but until the underlying premise changes, it'll still suck in just about the same way, and the bigger the blobs get, the more HP they have to introduce to counter the DPS. ---------------- We're recruiting quality players. Check us out.
Lykouleon	Posted - 2010.05.21 02:11:00 - [19] 1) No. Get over it. 2) No, learn to be flexible and be able to handle a large time commitment when doing sov warfare or GTFO. Rome didn't fall in a day and neither should a system. You want it, you'll be willing to do what it takes to get it. 3) Titan Proliferation treaties sound good? 4)Teehee, sounds like someone is just too lazy to go shoot it. 5) And get rid of the Conga? NO 6) LEAVE TEH BOMBERS ALOOOOONE Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
I'm Down	Posted - 2010.05.21 16:24:00 - [20] Originally by: davet517 Any sovereignty system that is based on massive DPS overcoming massive HP is going to devolve into lag fests and boring grinds of one kind or another. Sov shouldn't be based on shooting structures according to set timers at all. You can change the names and shapes of the toys on the field all you like, but until the underlying premise changes, it'll still suck in just about the same way, and the bigger the blobs get, the more HP they have to introduce to counter the DPS. Blobs exist in part atm because it's so **ing impossible to attack someone in any sort of enjoyable campaign and expect results other than killmails. Cyno jammers are a big part of the problem, when a defender can more easily online a new one and keep capitals in system while adding more through jump bridges. Defenders get left with the problem of staging in system and fearing the cage effect, or leaving system with little chance of getting the jammer down again. HP on stations and POS make it even harder because they're so high, it virtually assures that an smaller organization will have to commit an entire day to one system, rather than have the capability of attacking multiple systems at once. This again benefits the defender because they can stagger timers. On top of it all, with insurance the way it is, there's no way to bleed wealth off an alliance simply by roaming systems. The point of these changes is to remove a lot of the defender advantages, and provide more opportunities to create fighting rather than the set timer affect. I would have included insurance, but slowly it appears CCP is getting their head out of the sand on that issue, even if they haven't got a clue how to fix it yet. As always, the biggest problem 0.0 faces is that it needs very hard changes and nobody is willing to sacrifice their own safety nets for the sake of the game. People want to be spoon fed, and the result is this ** hole CCP has created. I'm speaking as a recent defender of the north, that it was just way to easy, even if the attackers were a bunch of clueless gits.



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.