| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
674
   |
Posted - 2014.07.03 23:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Zara Arran wrote:People might get angry with me for this one but... oh well.
Why are sleepers not affected by the system effect? If you take a system and use the advantages, you should also deal with the fact the sleepers have these advantages too. they used to get effected by some but not others. was inconsistent so it all went away. I dont think they should be. would make it almost impossible to run sites in a magnetar, and really damn easy in a pulsar.
Hah yeah the sig bloom + armor debuff is hilarious for escalations it also bugged out POSs pretty badly if it was applied to everything - not sure if I've still got the screenshot of the management screen with the pulsar effect affecting a domi POS in a C5 pulsar but it was kind of funky.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
677
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 14:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
muhadin wrote:
-Black Holes are terrible, too much downside not enough upside. Add missile bonuses?
I kind of wouldn't want to see Black Holes balanced out, some quirks give character, but as a trade off it wouldn't go amiss to add some other feature to black holes to make them more interesting even if its something like site spawns that only exist in those systems or a unique wormhole spawning setup of some kind. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
677
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 19:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kynric wrote:
I am not advocating the OP position, however, the statement that the defender is in general advantaged is not correct either. When thinking back through the history of system assaults which I have been involved with I can not think of a single one where the defender had the advantage. The nature of New Eden is that the attacker withholds pressing forward with the operation until he believes that he has not just a superior position but a vastly superior one.
I do think that the difficulty of getting forces back in contributes to the unwillingness to fly ships that are already likely lost. As such when given the choice of logging valuables off or of fighting most pick logging their stuff out. Allowing the defenders or attackers re - entry via a clone jump might not be the best answer but that inability is central to why invasions are the way they are. Perhaps running the other side out of ships would be more interesting than the current lack of engagements. Instead of dismissing it based on the idea that it eliminates the current tactic of victory via the other side not having any pilots, perhaps we should look at the bigger picture of what would be more interesting gameplay.
As much as anything I've generally seen people lose systems due to being unprepared, whether its naivety, hubris, a lack of foresight or just being sloppy - maybe with the mentality of "it happens to other people not me" then when someone does siege their system they are on the back foot even though they should have had the advantage.
Do agree though that most people don't attack unless they have a significant advantage when sieging a system - not always the case though. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
677
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 20:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
I suspect station games in w-space would see w-space become barren rather quickly, while that could be argued over whether it would be a good thing or not ultimately it would bring a good amount of what is wrong with nullsec to w-space.
While I'm not in favor of being able to clone jump into w-space in any shape and form if it was implemented then at the very least it would have to be 1 shot i.e. you need to physically bring the clone in initially to be able to jump back into it and jumping into the wormhole in that manner wouldn't let you install another clone to repeatedly do that with. |
| |
|