Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Net Malone
Bane Heavy Industries Inver Brass
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:44:00 -
[271] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
Yea, why only one battlefield per day ? BL was waiting 5 hours. IMO they should go north and grind something there :)
Quote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
HANDS OFF ORDINAR PLAYERS TOYS !!!
Coalitions - you see, there is no skill to form coalitions - are the problem. You need to postpone forming such monsters for few years. What players fly _is not a problem_. CCP need/wants to destroy source of blobs.
You see, technetium was a good idea - one valuable resource to fight for owning mines. But idea don't catched becouse of NIPs or maybe too powerfull blocks. Problem is political.
You see, you probably forgot, ordinar player is useless, rightless and helpless entity in this game.
You want with small bunch of friends to own some system ? You can't. Ah right... You can rent a system... What destroys players game experience ? Massive coalitions.
You found beautifull system far, far from HS, no one is realy using it becouse it is -0.2 or something. You want to grind, for example, custom offices. But you can't ! Why ? Becouse someone from other side of Universe do not allow you... And no, transportation problem is secondary or tertiaty here. Primary problem is: someone from other side of Universe should not be even concerned what is happening @ other side !
So, real problem is: actions of single player have no value - sov system prevent it.
Quote: Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle?
NO !
Quote: Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
YES !
Quote: If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
Are you CCP PR specialist now ? You should be on players side or I am wrong ? You just blakmailing community !
4k blob is CCP problem, they create situation that ONLY WAY to defend yourself is by forming big-number-fleets.
But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly.
"Rubicon" ? "No turning back" ? Burning bridges ? Maybe CCP is going down ? But if not, then, please, do something for ordinary player. Tip: ppls play games to achieve something... Actually, on so many levels, players are so poor and helpless drones...
Btw. dear CCP, you wrote ESS is "CSM contribution"... Could you give us a names of that unwise CSM members ? If you want to be honest could you give us what they REALY proposed too ? I asking becouse it is... umm... little useless. IMO, of course.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:47:00 -
[272] - Quote
Trying to limit a player from getting somewhere is dangerous, but there is things that can be done to dictate what they bring and how fast they bring it. That is where it would become more strategic. Everyone should refer to the production triangle.
Pick two.
Of course right now we get to pick all three and sometimes add a fourth for good measure... . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:49:00 -
[273] - Quote
Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? . |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3411
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:52:00 -
[274] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:This really is the answer to the problem: We need to implement a mechanic that gets people back OUT of system.Quote: Off the cuff example: A new AOE mechanic that teleports everyone on grid randomly into other systems within the constellation. --- This could from a player driven device that causes it -- This could be a "feature" of space destabilizing because (insert lore) and the server automatically implements this anytime the server load exceeds some threshold from some time period.
Hmmmm... let me think about that one...
I understand the off the cuff example has flaws, but the general point is still the same.
The server cannot handle everything we throw at it and there Already EXISTS a cap on how many pilots can function within a system. Just because this cap is server-determined, doesn't alter the fact that there still exists a cap (and there ALWAYS will be). Our options are deal with the traffic jam and the node crashes and the lag (accepting it as part of our game play), or find a means to move people out of system when they overcrowd it.
If you leave the people already in system there, you create a race on "how can fill up the system first". So you need another means to decide who stays and who goes. You also need a system that moves them along in a fair manner. Otherwise nothing gets solved, and its 4000 on todays hardware, and 6000 on tomorrows hardware, but we will still keep hitting limits and we'll still be in the same mess. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:53:00 -
[275] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? It wouldn't get rid of the blocs though. It wouldn't get rid of the 4000 man fights either. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
774
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:56:00 -
[276] - Quote
1. Distribute timers to multiple focus points in multiple systems. So GÇÿthe timerGÇÖ actually becomes several spatially distinct targets. 2. Nerf projection (timers, fuel, range pool, whatever). This will make controlling vast areas of space more difficult and give the local force an advantage. 3. Add lots of new space (queue player-built stargates) to dilute the current blocs. In conjunction with projection nerfs this will make coalitions less viable.
The risk of above is that null would stagnate with alliances only concerned about their home systems.
4. Make truesec dynamic. Think of it as GÇÿresource depletionGÇÖ and GÇÿresource growthGÇÖ. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4762
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 20:58:00 -
[277] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Net Malone wrote:But there is easy way to resolve situation: make map bigger x3, x4 or x12 ! Ppls will scatter, blobs will get smaller. And managing empty system should be easy enought and CPU friendly. You do realize that nerfing power projection by a factor of x3, x4 or x12 would achieve the exact same thing without having to increase the number of systems in the game right? It wouldn't get rid of the blocs though. It wouldn't get rid of the 4000 man fights either. Why be part of a bloc if you can't get help them defend or attack something on the other side of the game? Why send everyone and everything if that means that by the time you came back home, it had been pillaged and burned to the ground? . |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:07:00 -
[278] - Quote
Zappity wrote:1. Distribute timers to multiple focus points in multiple systems. So GÇÿthe timerGÇÖ actually becomes several spatially distinct targets. 2. Nerf projection (timers, fuel, range pool, whatever). This will make controlling vast areas of space more difficult and give the local force an advantage. 3. Add lots of new space (queue player-built stargates) to dilute the current blocs. In conjunction with projection nerfs this will make coalitions less viable.
The risk of above is that null would stagnate with alliances only concerned about their home systems.
4. Make truesec dynamic. Think of it as GÇÿresource depletionGÇÖ and GÇÿresource growthGÇÖ. 1, 2 will be good. 3 will just end up being what we have now, power blocs dropping TCU's all over and claiming huge areas to rent out.
To truly break up the blocs you need to remove the threat that causes them. Take FCON up in branch, even though they're technically far far away in the top right corner of the map, the regional in UJY-HE and DKUK-G puts them 10 minutes or less from subcap fleets out of VFK and surrounds. Likewise for Razor in Tenal, the HB-5L3 regional jump to SF-XJS puts the Drone region forces a few minutes subcap run from their space, and the Drone regions are physically further from Tenal than Fountain is...
Tenal, Branch and Venal were they not linked to far away regions by regional jumps should be one distinct smaller powerbloc not a member of a bloc that reaches from Tenal to Paragon Soul. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
774
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:11:00 -
[279] - Quote
But how would a bloc enforce an even vaster renter empire without projection? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:25:00 -
[280] - Quote
Zappity wrote:But how would a bloc enforce an even vaster renter empire without projection? I'm not saying its not a good idea but it'll be circumvented by using multiple fleets. The bigger the coalition, the more fleets they can afford to have. Wouldn't even need to be functionally superior fleets aimed at winning either. Just enough throw away battleships and other subcaps to make the node terribad enough to stall until your timers reset to jump your caps up. |
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
71
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:47:00 -
[281] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything.
The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB.
We play sov wars, because stakes are high.
Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
2905
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:49:00 -
[282] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. Maneuver warfare. Get your fleets in place ahead of the other guy. Win.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc |
CroisisCZ
BAND of MAGNUS
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:53:00 -
[283] - Quote
What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:56:00 -
[284] - Quote
Molenius Morrowinger wrote:Malcanis wrote:What is the root of the problem then? Because by definition it's pretty hard to have a super-coalition without power projection. Maybe power projection should not be linear but rather logarithmic. Thus effort of bringing more people will not worth the benefit of doing it. And the optimal point must be around the numbers which server can deal with minus extra buffer.
And how does that not describe my proposal?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:57:00 -
[285] - Quote
CroisisCZ wrote:What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities...
Because the nullblocs make their real money from active income: they rent out space which easy power projection allows them to dominate. The renters make their ISK from ratting, mining, plexing, etc and pay a tithe to their landlord.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Alice Ituin
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 21:58:00 -
[286] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: We play sov wars, because stakes are high.
Orly? What's this then? "Blowing some ships up is fine but don't touch us where it would really hurt" ?? |
CroisisCZ
BAND of MAGNUS
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:03:00 -
[287] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CroisisCZ wrote:What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities... Because the nullblocs make their real money from active income: they rent out space which easy power projection allows them to dominate. The renters make their ISK from ratting, mining, plexing, etc and pay a tithe to their landlord.
Yeah, by "passive" I meant mainly moongoo and renting space. |
Marsha Mallow
40
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Why be part of a bloc if you can't get help them defend or attack something on the other side of the game? Why send everyone and everything if that means that by the time you came back home, it had been pillaged and burned to the ground? Depends how blocs define themselves, ie territorial, social or economic.
You don't even need to undock as part of a NIP'd economic group to defend assets under attack; just dont threaten them. - |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:03:00 -
[289] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed.
Would the CFC have been quite so eager to 100% commit to saving -A-'s system if it meant leaving their northern regions undefended for a week?
It's precisely because the stakes are high that there has to be a motivation for very large groups not to commit their entire strength to a single fight. At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this.
"Find a way"? What way? Should the opposing sides form up a fleet each and then the GMs lock the system? How else are you going to stop people as motivated as you describe? Describe your system. Because it seems that my proposal DOES give them that motivation, and you're saying "nuh uh, I don't like a real, concrete reason not to dogpile, I want some magical mechanism that doesn't cause any inconvenience or change but is still somehow effective enough to stop them doing what they really really want to"
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13585
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:06:00 -
[290] - Quote
CroisisCZ wrote:Malcanis wrote:CroisisCZ wrote:What about (massive) nerf to passive income? It wont solve anything short-term as all big blocks have huge reserves but may cause some de-escalation in mid- to long-term horizon by limiting the SRP capabilities... Because the nullblocs make their real money from active income: they rent out space which easy power projection allows them to dominate. The renters make their ISK from ratting, mining, plexing, etc and pay a tithe to their landlord. Yeah, by "passive" I meant mainly moongoo and renting space.
And how do you "nerf" renting? There's no renting mechanic in game. It's just direct ISK transfer based on the ability and willingness of the landlord to easily stop anyone in they space they claim, and the willingness of the renters to pay a certain amount of ISK for the use of that space.
I'm not even against renting. There are a lot of things going for it. What I'm against is a single grouping being able to defend essentially the entire map.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4764
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:09:00 -
[291] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this.
Few hours for the unorganized, but for the ones with cyno chains and fuel ready to go; about 10-15 minutes. . |
CroisisCZ
BAND of MAGNUS
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:13:00 -
[292] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
And how do you "nerf" renting? There's no renting mechanic in game. It's just direct ISK transfer based on the ability and willingness of the landlord to easily stop anyone in they space they claim, and the willingness of the renters to pay a certain amount of ISK for the use of that space.
I'm not even against renting. There are a lot of things going for it. What I'm against is a single grouping being able to defend essentially the entire map.
I honestly do not know but that doesnt meant someone else cant come up with an idea Do you think that some kind of formal renting system provided by game itself could solve it or would people just keep using the current model? Although I admit that it would be hard to limit this income by some hard limitations (and also against the sandbox policy). |
Anomaly One
177
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:15:00 -
[293] - Quote
Alice Ituin wrote:Skia Aumer wrote: We play sov wars, because stakes are high.
Orly? What's this then? "Blowing some ships up is fine but don't touch us where it would really hurt" ??
woah, them carebears.. EvE: where non consenual pvp happens! except in null sec!
this is a deadlock. Never forget. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8sfaN8zT8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l_ZjVyRxx4 Trust me, I'm an Anomaly. DUST 514 FOR PC |
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:18:00 -
[294] - Quote
Work needs to be done on the standings system of coalitions, all this talk of cooldowns on capital jumps is absolute garbage, as is he talk of aurum/fuel cost of using gates, why should I have to fork out real money/in game money to go on a 60 system roam looking for targets?
The more blues a coalition has the less HP it's member alliance sov structures has in a ratio that expands as the numbers increase, and as they force project the numbers reduce as well according to how many coalition members have extended from their own space into enemy territory, that means they have to split forces to defend their space.
The information is already available in game due to the standing system, yes there will be ways to 'fool' the calculations but with a little effort from CCP it could be made viable. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1482
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:28:00 -
[295] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. While I love the idea to make EVE Galaxy feel larger (yes, do it!), I dont think it will solve anything. The battle in HED-GP happened not because of it's strategic value. The same battle could have happened in any other system, even regardless of sov. Actually, it almost happened when Goons moved their super fleet to their southern staging system - both sides were ready to engage, but PL scouts screwed up. That fight happened because people wanted to crush each other, and crush hard. So that it would mean REAL consequences. We dont want to blow up each others frigates cause we know they cost nothing to replace. We can do those **** roams once in a while, but that's not the reason why we play nullsec sov wars. RvB, Brave Newbies - sure, they have their fun. But guess what? If we wanted to play like RvB - we'd have joined RvB. We play sov wars, because stakes are high. Find a way to play high stakes without dogpiling everyone - and it's fixed. Would the CFC have been quite so eager to 100% commit to saving -A-'s system if it meant leaving their northern regions undefended for a week? It's precisely because the stakes are high that there has to be a motivation for very large groups not to commit their entire strength to a single fight. At the moment they're free to do so, safe in the knowledge that they can move a fleet from one side of the map to the other in a few hours, while sov timers give them a week to organise this. "Find a way"? What way? Should the opposing sides form up a fleet each and then the GMs lock the system? How else are you going to stop people as motivated as you describe? Describe your system. Because it seems that my proposal DOES give them that motivation, and you're saying "nuh uh, I don't like a real, concrete reason not to dogpile, I want some magical mechanism that doesn't cause any inconvenience or change but is still somehow effective enough to stop them doing what they really really want to" You're ideas are great. But given that the limit is 2000 vs 2000. Do the coalitions have to move their entire fleets. They only need to 3000 or so because they can't commit more than that anyway into a fight without the server having a heart attack.
CFC and N3/PL certainly have more than that number x a lot. The real bottleneck is people ala CFC's call to train into Omegafleet dreads. They could probably give every CFC member a free dread if you can believe their propaganda machine. |
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:36:00 -
[296] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4766
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:38:00 -
[297] - Quote
Nooodlzs wrote:Malcanis wrote: To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement.
Penalise but not reduce, reducing means the blob wins, check my post above for a solution, it needs padding out. Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system. . |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8660
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:45:00 -
[298] - Quote
Well that isn't vague at all. My EVE Videos |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1688
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:47:00 -
[299] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.
The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.
My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.
The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.
To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.
Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.
If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.
yes yes and yes.
I have been asking for this for years.
0.0 was way more fun before jf titan bridge and jump networks.
but they are all in the game.
what i would do is make it so titans cant bridge inside of pos shields and make the jump networks deployable structures that are deployed in safe spots that can be probed out and activated by hacking if you are a nuet or red.
that and i would make the jump drive an actual module the ship has to fit and it has a long cycle time of like 2 hours and half jump range also greatly increase the LY between regions.
that way there would be pockets that are protected from adjacent hot drops.
as for the jf i would change the ship from having a cargo bay to having a SMA.
that way the JF would be used to transport fully fit ships around.
if you want to move regular stuff you need a standard Freighter and have to use jump networks which can easily be camped and bubbled or use stargates which can also be camped and bubbled.
some of the most fun fights back in the day were caused by escorting trains of freighters up to null sec.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Nooodlzs
Ceptacemia Cult of War
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 22:49:00 -
[300] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:
Sovereignty should not revolve around a structure with any hit points, but be determined by actions of that alliance in that system.
Agreed, so tactical deployment should count for something, as should competence in PvP, TiDi has made competent tactics irrelevant, it gives bad players 'time' to react to good decisions from better players, fighting outnumbered is almost becoming irrelevant due to tidi. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |