Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Salastil
Gallente ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 03:23:00 -
[31]
I think the sov system should punish people even further for being dumb enough to participate in the sov warfare grind. There should be 12 reinforcement cycles and each structure should have 5x more EHP and randomly AoE jam everyone every 2 minutes. This way only the most dedicated will get land to control.
|
Double Dee
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 03:34:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Salastil I think the sov system should punish people even further for being dumb enough to participate in the sov warfare grind. There should be 12 reinforcement cycles and each structure should have 5x more EHP and randomly AoE jam everyone every 2 minutes. This way only the most dedicated will get land to control.
i know your trying to troll and doing the worst possible way at it but,...
this actually is not a bad idea. the only way it would work is if all assets and players were moved into low sec. then all player made stations removed from the game. all done over downtime. throw in a new sov system that the csm has not tainted with their idiotic ideas and it would do very well.
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 04:55:00 -
[33]
I assume this is a troll thread since it has to do with sov and was author'd by a PL member.
But I agree sov. needs work, so +1 anyhow.
|
Koshiko Murakami
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 19:18:00 -
[34]
Please iterate, +1.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.25 19:46:00 -
[35]
Dominion will be a pretty good expansion when CCP finish it...
-----------------
|
Elzon1
Shadow Boys Corp Without Remorse.
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 00:50:00 -
[36]
+1 CCP needs to improve upon the sov mechanics again
Perhaps sov could based on activity, you know the whole "no afk empires" thing?
Proposal:
I would say that the current sov system is based on time and resources and not so much activity. I would say to get rid of tcu's and sbu's but leave the ihub and activity mechanics. Have a weekly timer to show all alliance's average military and industrial activity in the system. If a different alliance's average weekly activity excedes the current owners activity a 48 hour timer begins to confirm dominance In this 48 hour timer (should include 2 downtimes) the last activity battle begins where most likely the battle will commence in however many belts there are in system seeing as the current owner would turn off their ihub to prevent its use by hostile forces. The new owner is decided upon who has the best activity average after the 48 hour period. Keep the regular strategic stuff set by the days and give any station in the system to anyone who can maintain sov for 28 days. The station remains in the previous owner's hands until that time has elapsed (plenty of time to get your stuffz out no?).
Since the target becomes farming/mining the belts over an entire week + the 48 hour timer it can have a high strategic cost if attempting to blob the enemy with a ton of supercaps if all you need is a decent sized fleet of sniper BS's. This becomes very obvious when fighting over only 3 belts in a single system. This makes it easier to take and lose systems to a small active marauding force. Ok maybe a force of 30 BS's will constitute a "small marauding force" for the systems with more belts, but you know what I mean Keep the sov bills though, that will slow down the little people doing it for the lulz. Keep the saving on POS fuel thing too and the PI mechanics regarding sov.
Suggestion:
Introduce the whole "mining moon goo from comets" thing so as to make those with passive isk moons irrelevent.
|
Fournone
|
Posted - 2010.10.26 00:51:00 -
[37]
We love you mazzilliu!
|
Doof Hardcastle
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.27 19:20:00 -
[38]
hi, yes, hello
|
Minari Zoranna
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 03:12:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Minari Zoranna on 28/10/2010 03:13:46 Yes, please. The Sov-grind is mind numbing and boring. It kills the soul! There is a place for siege warfare but grinding through a load of timers is just bad gameplay.
|
Minigin
Trinity Corp WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 03:22:00 -
[40]
not supported.
there will be no sov mechanic you will be happy with if it remains this easy to stick a billion people in a system whenever you want.
your problem isnt with sov its with jbs/standings. . THE ORIGINAL COLOUR POSTER!
Revisal > Nice job trying to troll me but luckily I'm smarter than you. :D |
|
Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 06:10:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Aphrodite Skripalle on 28/10/2010 06:12:05 so we need to vote, that ccp is doing their job ? If i dont vote, what are they doing then ? Working on other games ?
yes, i want them start working and doing their job. Fix that and all what is broken in this game, if you care about it.
|
Jareck Hunter
Rubicon Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 12:07:00 -
[42]
Well grinding with massive fleets through a wall of hp isn't that funny...
What about a module on a ship, that can take over sov?
Lets say, every reinforce cycle, the firewalls of the Ihubs and Outpost are down for 30 minutes or so (rebooting), during that time, somebody has to go there and activate the hacking module for 15 minutes and upload a programm to start the next RF cycle/ to finaly conquer the computer systems of the ihub.
To initiate the first RF cycle, they have to stay and hack there for 30 minutes and the owning alliance gets a warning, so no Sov can be stolen when nobody watches and small gangs can provoke a response.
Main problem would be massive Lag, so that not all hacking ships can be destroyed in the timeframe. Another smaller problem could also be small ships that ran around and start hacking, so you get a lot of warnings but nothing is contested, but well space has to be denfended or you don't deserve it. ------------------------------------------------- Sorry for my bad english^^ |
General Rivera
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 14:50:00 -
[43]
Sov seems fine to me now, they way its gained and lost.
One thing i would like to see implemented though is a the creation of a coalition, just like you would do an alliance. instead of Alliances messing around with standings and making chat rooms etc. Also with complete managemnt tool where the coatiltion executor Alliance/corp can have control. idk what else but yea
|
Double Dee
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 15:10:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Double Dee on 28/10/2010 15:11:54 again i must ask, 'why?'. the winners have control and the losers go back to high sec. just because you are horrible at winning 0.0 does not mean you get to run to the judges and have the rules changed to suit your play style.
you lost. time to move on ehh? why don't you sleep with a dev about it? oh wai...
|
Samurai Okie
Helljumpers Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.10.28 15:33:00 -
[45]
+1
Yes i made this Convo me in game and i might make things for you :P |
Alt Troll
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 13:54:00 -
[46]
____________ FEED me! You know you want to -all posts made on this character represent the views of my main's corp, alliance, as well as the views of everyone else in EVE and in the universe.- |
Sebea
Silentread Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 18:30:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Double Dee Edited by: Double Dee on 28/10/2010 15:11:54 again i must ask, 'why?'. the winners have control and the losers go back to high sec. just because you are horrible at winning 0.0 does not mean you get to run to the judges and have the rules changed to suit your play style.
you lost. time to move on ehh? why don't you sleep with a dev about it? oh wai...
holy **** your dumb
|
ChronoSphere
Sturmgrenadier Inc Sturmgrenadier Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 19:53:00 -
[48]
Sov definitely needs to get some more work done. -------------- ~Admiral, Commanding Officer Sturmgrenadier, Inc. Join Sturmgrenadier today! |
Shuckstar
Hauling hogs
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 00:22:00 -
[49]
Supported, and try explaining to them that time zone wars are utter ****. You are going to fast! Wait five minutes and try again.
|
Mishkaii
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 02:58:00 -
[50]
Posting to confirm the current system is terrible.
|
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2010.11.01 03:27:00 -
[51]
bumping this because it would really help my argument with CCP if i had numbers to back it up. share this thread with your friends!
|
Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.01 03:50:00 -
[52]
Look at it this way:
Last time they (CCP) "worked on sovereignty" it brought us to the current state (of clusterf***).
Now you want to ask them to top their previous "performance"? U mad? Not supported like hell! I'd rather have the old POS siege grind back, tbh. Or can the whole concept for good and come up with something different that isn't such an utter PITA.
On the other hand, if they just wait long enough and proceed on the current road/course, they might just succeed in depopulating 0.0 and solve the issue that way...
|
Mon Dieux
|
Posted - 2010.11.01 10:14:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Mon Dieux on 01/11/2010 10:17:38
Originally by: Double Dee Edited by: Double Dee on 28/10/2010 15:11:54 again i must ask, 'why?'. the winners have control and the losers go back to high sec. just because you are horrible at winning 0.0 does not mean you get to run to the judges and have the rules changed to suit your play style.
you lost. time to move on ehh? why don't you sleep with a dev about it? oh wai...
Sorry to be offtopic here, but after reading 5 posts by this person and also taking their name into account, I have come to conclusion that they are a prat.
To add something useful to the conversation, I agree with reviewing sov.
Carry on.
|
Mynxee
|
Posted - 2010.11.01 12:52:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Mynxee on 01/11/2010 12:54:16 +1
Even as someone with little experience or interest in sov end-game, players approach me all the time about the terribleness of sov as it is now. At the direct request of some of them, I have posed the question to CCP on our internal forums about how they assess sov as-is to ascertain whether and how well it is working. Curious what their answer is going to be.
Given the CSM's improved communications and access to CCP these days, a request for a review and ongoing discussion of how to change sov for the better is not only possible, but probable. Also, we are requesting a double session on the topic of null sec at the December Summit and possibly a session or more devoted to sov specifically.
Originally by: Double Dee there is already a thread in assembly hall on a sov revamp here. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1401938
... this thread is not even properly put together.
This proposal is for CCP to review sov (along with an implied request to engage the CSM in a discussion about it). I don't think it is intended as a replacement for your or any of the other AH threads that offer prescriptive ideas for sov changes. Should this proposal get sufficient support and be passed by CSM vote, all those threads would most likely be linked in the issue's wiki page for reference purposes. That way, they can easily be taken into consideration during any review and discussion.
As for being properly put together, the only thing really missing here is a "[Proposal]" prefix in the title that offers readers a clue as to the purpose of the thread. The title itself could be more to the point, e.g., "[Proposal] CCP: Review Sov and Commit to Fixing It!" for ease of reference and to add a little punch, but that's a matter of personal style.
Life In Low Sec |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.11.01 13:44:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Bagehi on 01/11/2010 13:51:02
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Dominion will be a pretty good expansion when CCP finish it...
This. I don't think what they've come out with is terrible. I think it is just not complete and needs to be finished.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Arkanor
Ixion Defence Systems
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 07:09:00 -
[56]
Supported for making sov warfare suck less. And not letting this disappear into the ether.
|
Atius Tirawa
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 11:31:00 -
[57]
They took somthing bad and made is worse. -----------
|
Janos Saal
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 14:10:00 -
[58]
It really should be more compelling than it is currently.
|
Lady Parity
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 14:59:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Lady Parity on 08/11/2010 15:00:44 Sov and all things 0.0 need to be looked at and a team need to be focused on 0.0 at all times
Oh and for the record, the team should look at the following areas
NAPs Sov claiming (Timers etc) Blob warfare Supercap Spamming
|
SXYGeeK
do you -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 16:13:00 -
[60]
Agree, Sov needs some further attention.
Shameless plug for my own idea's here.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1235109&page=9#270 -We So SeXy |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |