Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sanicity
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 18:11:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Sanicity on 06/11/2010 18:13:33 Hello,
I believe that sovereignty is a broken game mechanic. It is far to easy for large alliances to be able to pay for sovereignty rather than actually having to defend it. They took sov at the change of the mechanic and then only have to ever defend it if someone decides to pay 350mil (per stargate) to contest it. With unlimited resources (isk) one could run 10 men to take sov from many alliances. One could blockade the many of systems one large alliance owns, and take the ones they choose not to defend.
Quoted from evewiki.eveonline.com---
(on TCU mechanics)
The structure is vulnerable to attacks while it is in the "anchoringô, "anchoredô and "onliningô states. An online TCU is invulnerable unless both of the following conditions are fulfilled: Sovereignty Blockade Units are anchored and onlined at more than 50% of the gates in the system. The sovereign entity over the system does not possess an Outpost/Conquerable Station nor an online Industrial Hub within the system.
If this statement was revised to say---
The structure is vulnerable to attacks while it is in the "anchoringô, "anchoredô and "onliningô states. An online TCU is invulnerable unless ONE of the following conditions are fulfilled: Sovereignty Blockade Units are anchored and onlined at more than 50% of the gates in the system. The sovereign entity over the system does not possess an Outpost/Conquerable Station nor an online Industrial Hub within the system.
This would require the large alliances to actually fight for their space... which i believe they can do, they just aren't required to do by game mechanics.
The game was once a game for those who liked large scale battles and one for those who like small scale battles. Now small scale is not viable to contest Sov.
I understand being part of the minority (small warfare) i will not have many followers in this thread, but this isn't a popularity contest, it is a request for fair game mechanics for all who play it.
Thank you all for listening and for your time upon this subject.
Respectfully, Sanicity |
Sanicity
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 18:24:00 -
[2]
A further note.
Someone brought to my attention if the TCU used stront to go into reinforced than it would give the alliance time to stage a defense.
Reasonable arguement.
With reinforced timer/stront capacity being dependant upon sov level.
Again thank you all
Sanicity |
Lady Parity
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 18:26:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Sanicity
I understand being part of the minority (small warfare) i will not have many followers in this thread, but this isn't a popularity contest, it is a request for fair game mechanics for all who play it.
Tbh NC will disagree with anything that promotes PvP, because Vuk doesnt approve of combat.
Not really sure about your idea but yes CCP really needs todo something about 0.0 to promote small gang warfare
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 20:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lady Parity Tbh NC will disagree with anything that promotes PvP, because Vuk doesnt approve of combat.
Hey, where'd the Jita node go the other day? Everything was like, all laggy and stuff cuz they were using worse equipment for the system.
Oh wait, the NC was using it to kill Russians and set the all-time concurrent user record for a single system.
u mad bro?
|
Grozdan Boyadijev
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 22:26:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lady Parity Tbh NC will disagree with anything that promotes PvP, because Vuk doesnt approve of combat.
Not really sure about your idea but yes CCP really needs todo something about 0.0 to promote small gang warfare
You'd be surprised. Even the large alliances are rather fed up with the way sov warfare works post-Dominion. The system heavily favors defenders and only encourages both sides bringing enormous fleets to one point of contention. I, for one, would be ecstatic to see a system in which small alliances can take and hold sovereignty from large alliances who are unwilling to at least mount a defensive effort. As nice as being a member of the "naptrain" is, having to fly 30 jumps to find someone to shoot at because every adjacent conquerable region is held by a rather small number of alliances is frustrating. I don't support this specific attempt at a fix, though, because it's trying to put a bandaid on a rather large problem, and I also don't believe that sov issues can be truly fixed until lag is reduced to reasonable levels.
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 22:32:00 -
[6]
Originally by: captain foivos Oh wait, the NC was using it to kill Russians and set the all-time concurrent user record for a single system.
stuffing everyone and their mother into one system is not ~PVP~
Trolling aside, I'd say the real issue with sov warfare atm is the timers, not the ability to attack the TCU. Station + IHUB HP is ridiculous, and the timers on those are heavily weighted in a way that you can force an attacking force to fight you in your most effective TZ, thus allowing you plenty of time to cram as many people into a system as you possibly can to deter a ~good fight~
Quote: Lord Makk > Our pilots are masochist buttjockey
|
SXYGeeK
Gallente do you -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 03:11:00 -
[7]
There is a whole discussion thread dedicated to how Sov battles could be made better. I have a suggestion there to add a "declarative" function to Sov battles, in that smaller scale battles would have an affect on the Sov over time, that they could be used to soften up a defender and shift the TCU/Hub/Station battles in favor of the attacker (TZ and HP wise)
Give this a read and comment.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1235109&page=9#270
-We So SeXy |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |