| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
WisdomPanda
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
   |
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:27:00 -
[601]
 Originally by: CCP Soundwave
A wide range of options were considered, among those, different levels of guns on the POS. Everything from changing the fitting requirements to stripping them entirely. At the end of the day, I'm not entirely thrilled about basing smaller scale pvp around POSs. I really like the idea of having it out on the open, at a "neutral" structure like gates. It's much more visible than having to track down a POS that will still give your opponent an advantage.
Is this an official endorsement that gatecamping = CCP's idea of PvP?
-----
Cheesecake, Natures ultimate weapon. |
Purrp Ledone
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:27:00 -
[602]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Purrp Ledone
Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
I think we're doing this in terms of longer scale development, at least to some extent. We're developing the plan, which we'll share with the CSM this month, and hopefully we'll be able to show the players shortly after that.
This is an isolated change that has been slated to happen for a while.
seriously why wasn't "removing guns from JB pos" considered since it's stupid easy to do, does a better job than your proposal, and doesn't increase tedium
CCP Soundwave, can you elaborate on whether this option was considered, and if so, why it was rejected?
A wide range of options were considered, among those, different levels of guns on the POS. Everything from changing the fitting requirements to stripping them entirely. At the end of the day, I'm not entirely thrilled about basing smaller scale pvp around POSs. I really like the idea of having it out on the open, at a "neutral" structure like gates. It's much more visible than having to track down a POS that will still give your opponent an advantage.
Sorry, I actually quoted the wrong post for my question - a few other posts suggested stripping POS guns from JBs as well as making them show up on everyone's overview. I understand your point about "neutral" structures - but as far as I can tell, this proposed change would achieve your small-gang PVP goals without the significant side effects of making logistics more miserable than they already are and effectively boosting caps and supercaps even further relative to subcaps.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:27:00 -
[603]
Originally by: Cynthia Ysolde
Originally by: Mattress Lover
Have any of the devs making these changes ever played Eve in 0.0? I doubt it, they are moronic and show a complete lack of understanding of the game.
As regards force projection you are just making people do 30-40 jumps instead of 5-6. Thanks for making Eve more boring and time consuming - I am completely amazed at how stupid you are.
Listen to the CSM, that's why they're there, to protect our interests.
its almost like they're trying to make eve a big place you can't get from one side of to the other in 10 minutes
Lol!
Coming from the alliance with the highest number of jump capable ships / char...
|
WarriorTooth
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:28:00 -
[604]
Originally by: Furb Killer
So it is an issue that players have a chance of defending themselves? Because right now both for industrials and any kind of pve ship, the only defense against a pvp ship is not being caught. Get caught, you die. Dont get caught, you dont die.
So since you say here you think it should be impossible to evade being caught by being careful and watching out, how long do you think an industrial player stays in 0.0 when he gets ganked repeatedly without anything he can do about it (since you say that is what you want, you should die even if you are careful, watch out and got a scout). Why not just randomly let pve/industrial ships explode in 0.0?
It's priority for industrialists as it is to have JFs to haul their stuff from far far away because alliances shout at people using JBs for big ships.
That will not change and ganking on gates isn't what really happens unless you are a ******, and a ****** without spaceship friends at that
|
Lisa Tsutola
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:29:00 -
[605]
Haha.
Awesome change and awesome tears.
|
6tg
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:29:00 -
[606]
I agree, i have watched as nerf bat after nerf bat has been applied, with regards only to how the effects are on larger allainces or groups with no care of what happens to the individual that loves to plex enough to buy a ship to go then pvp in.
here is what i am seeing.
Beep CCP players making enough isk to afford plex.... Beep playing for free cannot be tolerated.... Beep CCP nerf the anoms making half of 0.0 useless. Beep How can we keep the normal player buying plex and fattening the CCP wallet? Nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf .........
Enough time to play a game where i can play a game not be a GD slave to the isk.... i want to play not spend all my TIME screwing about for ISK. ! once more i agree with the other players I've had enough..... i cant count at least 700 players i play with that are fed up with this kind of crap!
|
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:29:00 -
[607]
Ships with jump drives, meh.
1 jump bridge per system? Horrible idea, just horrible...
|
CheckingAmarr
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:29:00 -
[608]
CCP, where increasing tedium somehow leads to more vibrant gameplay and a larger nullsec playerbase.
|
Molly Roger
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:29:00 -
[609]
Edited by: Molly Roger on 10/05/2011 21:31:32
Ya know, CCP may not want to stir the pot in null for the time being, considering all of null will soon band together to take out the boters and RMTers that has been ignored.
EDIT: Also, many alliances have yet to recover from the last null sec nerf. Considering running L4s in empire is far more profitable for a single pilot now.
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:29:00 -
[610]
Originally by: ModeratedToSilence
When an organisation is formulating a major plan, that will potentially have widespread long term effects, it simple common sense to put small isolated changes on hold until the big picture is clear. Making a small isolated change while planning a major long term progression can have drastic results on the long term effects. I believe the term for these effects has been coined as the "butterfly effect". Do you understand this concept?
Maybe they should stop releasing bug fixes while they figure out this plan too. Maybe they should leave ship balance alone while they figure out the plan? As they said, they feel this is an isolated thing that's going to be part of the changes no matter what. And, they feel that they damage the game as a whole. Why should they delay the rollout?
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
|
|
|
Senhu Kudoma
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:30:00 -
[611]
Originally by: Cynthia Ysolde
its almost like they're trying to make eve a big place you can't get from one side of to the other in 10 minutes
So in other words, terrible, miserable, and no fun. Remember warp to 15? It also made gate camping easier and travel slower and it was *awful*.
|
rofflesausage
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:30:00 -
[612]
Originally by: Rumpelstilski
Originally by: rofflesausage
Make it so they are not at a POS and show on the overview like gates?
Just make a JB effectively the same as a gate in terms of how they work in game, with the addition of fuel and ownership.
There is a reason why there is such a thing as "shallow 0.0" and "deep 0.0".
Otherwise there'd be empire gates in omist and tenal, no? 
I'm talking about how they show on the overview and have no guns around them, not how they link.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:30:00 -
[613]
Originally by: WarriorTooth
Originally by: Furb Killer
So it is an issue that players have a chance of defending themselves? Because right now both for industrials and any kind of pve ship, the only defense against a pvp ship is not being caught. Get caught, you die. Dont get caught, you dont die.
So since you say here you think it should be impossible to evade being caught by being careful and watching out, how long do you think an industrial player stays in 0.0 when he gets ganked repeatedly without anything he can do about it (since you say that is what you want, you should die even if you are careful, watch out and got a scout). Why not just randomly let pve/industrial ships explode in 0.0?
It's priority for industrialists as it is to have JFs to haul their stuff from far far away because alliances shout at people using JBs for big ships.
That will not change and ganking on gates isn't what really happens unless you are a ******, and a ****** without spaceship friends at that
Not relevant, he said that even with watching out and scouting you still should die to gatecamps, so he wants to change the game such that no matter how careful you are, you still get ganked without anything you can do about it.
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:30:00 -
[614]
Originally by: WisdomPanda
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
A wide range of options were considered, among those, different levels of guns on the POS. Everything from changing the fitting requirements to stripping them entirely. At the end of the day, I'm not entirely thrilled about basing smaller scale pvp around POSs. I really like the idea of having it out on the open, at a "neutral" structure like gates. It's much more visible than having to track down a POS that will still give your opponent an advantage.
Is this an official endorsement that gatecamping = CCP's idea of PvP?
PVP isn't a singular activity. Gatecamping and killing people is one form of PVP. I'm not going to rank the different types, I'd prefer if they were all happening to some degree. If you have people camping your space, you should do more to secure it.
|
|
progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:30:00 -
[615]
Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 10/05/2011 21:15:17
I'm genuinely interested to know how having to do a couple of warps between each bridge will "kill 0.0"
Like I said, CCP has screwed up 0.0 so much that Delve - one of the best regions in the game that doesn't have technetium - is so unpleasant nobody wanted it. IT kept sov for forever after they fled back to empire because it just wasn't really worth the time. Now, it's even ****tier: it's deep 0.0 so getting there is just much more of a pain in the ass, traveling is boring as all hell. The only sov worth having is technetium sov, but CCP has implemented two hamfisted nerfs rather than fixing these broad swaths of worthless regions. Delve proved there's already so little value in 0.0 that it's starting to empty out.
This is the most untrue statement I have ever seen.
|
The Mittani
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:31:00 -
[616]
My stance on this is nuanced. I approve of this in part, and oppose it in part. Mostly, I approve; my opposition is entirely based on the timing of the nerf in relation to the planned nullsec improvements coming later in the development cycle which Soundwave mentioned in his blog.
In my view, given how set on a bridge nerf CCP was, one bridge/system was the most modest change we could negotiate them down to. The fact that CCP was willing to throw in a fuel bay buff when I suggested it was a last-minute change which helped take some of the sting off, and I was pleased by this willingness on their part.
My stance is 'political' because I don't believe in fighting impossible battles. If CCP makes it clear they want a bridge nerf of some flavor, I'm not going to throw a tantrum about it; I'm going to try to find the best, most reasonable accommodation and advocate for that. Some of the nullsec CSM reps took a hard line against any bridge nerf at all, and I opted to back the one I found most reasonable instead.
My personal view is that 1 bridge/system is acceptable when packaged with a suite of changes to add 'Farms and Fields' to nullsec. As an avid Sabre ganker, I think 1 bridge/1 system will allow alliances who have their **** together to function just fine, while those alliances who are less organized will suffer greatly.
I did argue against this change being implemented in a vacuum, however, as in my view it should have been rolled out during the range of proposed changes that Soundwave mentioned in his blog, rather than hot on the heels of the anomaly nerf with no improvements to line-member nullsec gameplay until winter-ish or later. That's the core of my disagreement, the timing, not the nerf itself.
As this has occurred in a vacuum, outside of the nullsec overhaul, the balance of the game swings ever more towards the 'PL Model' where sovholding entities can be attacked with no recourse from entities living in perfect safety in NPC 0.0. I am going to be exploring the possibilities of having NPC 0.0 station services made vulnerable. If nullsec is going to be a zone where everyone kicks each other in the balls on a daily basis (and I'm comfortable with that), those in NPC 0.0 should enjoy a little ball-kicking too.
I don't think capships should use bridges. Never have. vOv
The Mittani for CSM6
Sins of a Solar Spymaster
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari
Blood Covenant
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:31:00 -
[617]
Originally by: Furb Killer
That will not change and ganking on gates isn't what really happens unless you are a ******, and a ****** without spaceship friends at that
Not relevant, he said that even with watching out and scouting you still should die to gatecamps, so he wants to change the game such that no matter how careful you are, you still get ganked without anything you can do about it.
Don't dramatize, they aren't making gankers randomly invisible on overview, they're making people jump a gate between using jump bridges
|
Svennig
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:32:00 -
[618]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Svennig
A "neutral" structure which imposes its own mechanics onto fleet fights that take place at it? Are you high right now? You're forcing gate games onto people. If you did it at an ungunned POS it would be a much more neutral fight.
A POS where the defender has access to the shields and has exclusive right to bringing in reinforcements through the bridge? No, we'll definately not agree that a gate is as safe as a friendly POS, even without the gun.
Make it so that JB pos shields are un-enterable.
And as for reinforcements - yes, because god help that in a system which hundreds of players spent thousands of collective man hours grinding RF timers on, in space which they've spent thousands of hours and potentially billions of isk upgrading and paying sov bills for, the defenders should have an advantage of getting reinforcements through a single jump bridge. </sarcasm>
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:32:00 -
[619]
Kudos CCP, a change int he right direction and even tho this will produce no less whining than the nano and web nerf, itll be just as healthy for the game. Looking forward to more breaking with the old.
-
|
CHAOS100
The Ankou
Raiden.
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:33:00 -
[620]
Good changes. The south got nerfed with the Sanctum nerf, now the north gets its turn with jump bridge nerf. EAT IT
--------------
|
|
|
Giselle Garner
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:33:00 -
[621]
They are only getting that you have to protect "your" system. Won't allow that a 100 member alliance have 5-6 systems of his ownership.
|
Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:33:00 -
[622]
I agree with the changes and I think this will result in more casual PVP and people having to spend more time actually policing their space, 7 days notice is a little harsh though.
---
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:34:00 -
[623]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 10/05/2011 21:34:12
Originally by: Rumpelstilski
Originally by: Furb Killer
That will not change and ganking on gates isn't what really happens unless you are a ******, and a ****** without spaceship friends at that
Not relevant, he said that even with watching out and scouting you still should die to gatecamps, so he wants to change the game such that no matter how careful you are, you still get ganked without anything you can do about it.
Don't dramatize, they aren't making gankers randomly invisible on overview, they're making people jump a gate between using jump bridges
I feel like repeating myself, but he said that even if you watch out, are careful and have a scout you SHOULD still die, so without anything you can do about it.
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari
Blood Covenant
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:34:00 -
[624]
Originally by: Svennig
And as for reinforcements - yes, because god help that in a system which hundreds of players spent thousands of collective man hours grinding RF timers on, in space which they've spent thousands of hours and potentially billions of isk upgrading and paying sov bills for, the defenders should have an advantage of getting reinforcements through a single jump bridge. </sarcasm>
As far as I understood, defenders will still have a single jump bridge to receive reinforcements from, they will also control whether the cyno jammer is up or not.
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:34:00 -
[625]
Originally by: FellRaven
Did you read the bit that said Capitals can't use JBs? Which in effect means you can't defend a Cyno Jammed system with Capital.
A few comments:
- Obviously they won't have capitals either...
- Maybe you could take the cyno jammer down while you let your army in/out? It'd be kinda like opening the gate and making sure that you have your forces on standby should the enemy sally forth to attack?
- Maybe just have spare caps stationed in system?
Seems like this is a surmountable problem.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
|
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:35:00 -
[626]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Svennig
A "neutral" structure which imposes its own mechanics onto fleet fights that take place at it? Are you high right now? You're forcing gate games onto people. If you did it at an ungunned POS it would be a much more neutral fight.
A POS where the defender has access to the shields and has exclusive right to bringing in reinforcements through the bridge? No, we'll definately not agree that a gate is as safe as a friendly POS, even without the gun.
You seem curiously intent on putting all of the risk onto defenders rather than attackers.
Why shouldn't a roaming gang be baited and attacked by reinforcements, after the territorial owner went to the effort of setting up, fueling, and paying the tower?
0.0 wasn't designed for consensual pvp. You are not entitled to a fair fight where everyone lines up 10 ships of equal type to fight like gentlemen. You'll get both ganks, fair fight and massive cap ship fights, but there is no guarantee you can always chose exactly which one. We're not an instanced game that offers battlegrounds and I don't see any reason we should be.
|
Elektra Ashbringer
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:36:00 -
[627]
What will this mean to a mere sup cap pilot in 0.0 ?
- Your only way to travel to highsec is removed because everyone know where to gate camp now, you are guaranteed traffic on those gates (like the one from 0.0 to lowsec always is camped)
- You can't live in 0.0 unless you are able to fly capitals, and that takes not only months of farming in isk for skills and ship, but months of training just to sit in it, and then you need months of training to get jump range skills up, and this still requires you to use at least 2 accounts for cyno-alts, or at least POS'es with cyno fields on.
--------------
If you wanted to balance 0.0, try removing afk cloak campers in ratting systems, that when they can be bothered hot drop a few moms on top of you, reducing the days income to 0 isk, and with the JB's down, a sub cap pilot can't get a new ratting ship.
Making high end moons more available, would require another income for alliances/corps, and this could be the more ratting that would be available if people couldn't afk camp your system.
Only a 1 sec cool down on a JB would cause a 120 man fleet to wait at least 2 minutes before the fleet is through, and in that time they might as well just have jumped using stargates, and the JB's would still be available to the logistics with 1-2 freighter a week!
Too bad so many tears inhere floods the thread and no one who can make a difference ever read semi-serious threads! |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:36:00 -
[628]
Originally by: CHAOS100
Good changes. The south got nerfed with the Sanctum nerf, now the north gets its turn with jump bridge nerf. EAT IT
Just an FYI, the DRF got the top 8 truesec regions, the NC got except providence pretty much all the worst truesec regions, just saying...
|
progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:36:00 -
[629]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: WisdomPanda
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
A wide range of options were considered, among those, different levels of guns on the POS. Everything from changing the fitting requirements to stripping them entirely. At the end of the day, I'm not entirely thrilled about basing smaller scale pvp around POSs. I really like the idea of having it out on the open, at a "neutral" structure like gates. It's much more visible than having to track down a POS that will still give your opponent an advantage.
Is this an official endorsement that gatecamping = CCP's idea of PvP?
PVP isn't a singular activity. Gatecamping and killing people is one form of PVP. I'm not going to rank the different types, I'd prefer if they were all happening to some degree. If you have people camping your space, you should do more to secure it.
Exactly
|
Lev Aeris
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:36:00 -
[630]
Originally by: CHAOS100
Good changes. The south got nerfed with the Sanctum nerf, now the north gets its turn with jump bridge nerf. EAT IT
Pure Blind got a brutal fist ****ing as well.
meh
CCP's Vision for eve seems to be make it as fun as group sex in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |