|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12648
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 16:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Attack Battleships with Capital Guns [
[/list]
I have an idea for this. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12649
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 20:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
well theres always alts and HS/LS too trade and make isk etc... what would be interesting is adding people too planets .. so holding SOV would allow you too collect tax from them..
So how is this a good thing for your average line member given that a planet would be alliance level income?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12649
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 20:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
well theres always alts and HS/LS too trade and make isk etc... what would be interesting is adding people too planets .. so holding SOV would allow you too collect tax from them..
So how is this a good thing for your average line member given that a planet would be alliance level income? like alliances don't have SRP's??
Not all of them, most don't cover fully, and in my case the vast bulk of my costs are not covered due to my special interests (I think I get like, 10% back on my harpy variation).
So again, how does this help average joe? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote: Not all of them, most don't cover fully, and in my case the vast bulk of my costs are not covered due to my special interests (I think I get like, 10% back on my harpy variation). So again, how does this help average joe?
The average joe is getting -a new challange. -more space -less blob wars -a new gold rush and the CFC is the first coaliton I know that does close to full reimburstment. Which I never used. A old rule in EVE is "You should not fly a ship you can not afford to lose"
Your plan gives no new challenge, yet more useless space for use to hold onto for zero reason, just as many blobs as now and no isk income for line members all while fixing not a single one of the problems null sec has. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
special interest .. so your example is a small exception..
Outside of strat ops you don't get full payout on losses and if you want to go into some areas of fly expensive toys you get nothing.
So no, its not a small exception and that's from the best SRP on offer. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
you're trying too tell me the richest alliance in the game couldn't afford too ??
Do you have any idea how big our bills are?
Cold war superweapon arms races are not cheap affairs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12651
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 21:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
are you kidding me?? you're probably sitting on hundreds of trillions
This is why people who don't live in null shouldn't throw around ideas on how to fix the problems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12652
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 22:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Why not?
The people running null are the ones responsible for ruining it. Admittedly with collusion from CCP.
How are we responsible? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12660
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 10:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just adding more space will result in exactly what we have now, only CFC and N3/PL will hold even more space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12660
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 10:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Just adding more space will result in exactly what we have now, only CFC and N3/PL will hold even more space. then it were not enough systems. I am not joking around when i say make it 100.000ly and a 1mil systems. This would be 12000 jumps for a titan to cross and it would take 10days and need insane amounts of fuel. If you want to bring the big coalitions into trouble you have to think big
Thats not possible with current server technology and you STILL have not fixed the problems with null. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12660
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 11:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote: and you STILL have not fixed the problems with null. The problem with null is not a game mechanic problem it is a meta gaming problem. Yes there are some null mechanics that are not cool or fun but no game mechanic can solve the problem that the bigger amount of players with the better means of working together will be the one who owns the space. And systems that are not loaded because nobody is there is not a server performance problem.
Most of null is already empty and it is very much game mechanic issues at the heart of nulls problems.
Empire sprawl is the result of each system only being able to support at most 10 ratters at a time. Sov mechanics dictate that we need huge fleets to fight a handful of battles to grind down billions in EHP. The way carriers work means we can dump massive boot/wreckingball fleets into a cynojammed system and be invincible. Supers and titans are a pain for everyone including the people flying them as they are now trapped in a space coffin. Logistics means that smaller fleet dock up because they simply cannot kill anything.
These are the problems with null not a lack of space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12662
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 17:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:
@baltec1 Just because there is no one willing to find or able to make a countersetup work does not mean the game is broken.
Its not about willingness its a hard fact. It is impossible for a new power to break us. It is also impossible for either of the two powerblocks to beat the other. In order to break a boot fleet you need more subcaps than the server can handle and even if the servers could handle it neither of us have the manpower to do it. And we still have all of those other issues to deal with. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12662
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 17:23:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:Power projection is not realy the issue.
EVE is full and I will try to explain. open your map and look at stats - null is 80% empty, nobody rats, nobody fights, nobody do anything there - so how can eve be full? without instant teleport abilities your 1000 man fleet would be on the other side of the map if you plan well. and if you chek map history null has become _EMPTIER_ as the blue donut consolidated, not fuller.
Take away that teleport ability and we will simply slog 2000 guys via the gates. Power projection isn't an issue to be fixed by nerfing jumpbridges and jumpdrives. Infact, it will make holding space even easier. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12662
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 18:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:@ baltec So we agree on that there are 2 superpowers left and that they will not kill each other.
The question is if this is a failure in game mechanic or is it natural? I say it is natural. To make my point let us take a view on the history of humanity. In the middle of the 19 century we reached the point where we had all continents fully colonized. At the end of this colonization we had 6 nations USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan who wanted more. For the next 50 years they fought some smaller wars and in the end it escalated in the 2 biggest and cruelest wars the world has ever seen. After that 2 coalitions were left one around the USSR the other around USA with a few states left in a block of states with no alignment. At the end none could fight the other, but the critical threshold was the moment when there was enough personal, ressources and technolgy to colonize the world. The rest was just a change in distribution of the territory they had control over.
The same applies for EVE we had a colonization time, then we had smaller wars and it escalated to a number of bigger wars and in the end 2 coalitions are left.
I could tell the same story with companys but this is simpler to understand.
So I say this is the natural it is not the fault of CCP or the game mechanics they created. We just hit the threshold and then we had 5 years of amazing battles.
@Sara Tosa What baltec said is right we would lock down all gates to empire like we did when we had the cynojammer screen in 2006-2009.
So you can change the game mechanics which is the technology in this universe but it will not bring you below the escalation threshold. It will probaly make the universe less believable which would be sad.
EVE is full
No we dont agree. I am saying we CANT kill eachother, the mechanics make it impossible to break the stalemate and also make it impossible for anyone new to take us on. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12663
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 19:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:Yes we can end it we just have disband the coalitions but we are not doing that.
And that isnt going to happen untill the need for those coalitions goes away. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12663
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 20:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
Snot Shot wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:Yes we can end it we just have disband the coalitions but we are not doing that. And that isnt going to happen untill the need for those coalitions goes away. Can you provide an example of what CCP could do for that to happen?
Residency based sov. Remove the need to grind through hundreds of millions of HP in a handful of timed fights and you remove the need to have large fleets of caps the grind through those structures. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12663
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 20:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:Coalitions were created when alliances were not enough to defend space in the escalation process. You do not need them if there is enough space for everyone and this again proves my point
Maybe 80% of the systems are not great but you can make 100mil per h per account in them if you want. I could do that, so I assume people do not want them for other reasons. To my mind comes " We get SRP no need for ratting", "Ratting is boring" , "I don't rat in a pipe because of the gangs" and " I'm only in this game for PVP"
you will not earn 100 mil in anoms in 80% of null systems. You will earn more in high sec blitzing level 3 missions in a mach. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12663
|
Posted - 2014.08.10 20:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:And how would that end the stagnation?
We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12663
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 00:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
Athryn Bellee wrote:
Super blobs are not content if the subcaps can't do anything about them. Then it is just bullying, plain and simple.
Capital blobs will also be dealt with as part of the null revamp along with RR as a whole to make smaller fleets viable. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12663
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 00:15:00 -
[20] - Quote
Athryn Bellee wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:And how would that end the stagnation?
We lose sov in every system outside of dek because it would be impossible for us to hold it freeing up several thousand systems for smaller alliances. I think occupancy or user based sov is a step in the right direction, but how does that stop any large group from imposing protection fees on another smaller group? Let's say this change happens and alliances own the regions they actually operate in. Wouldn't a group like CFC or N3/PL just tell the little guys that they can keep their space so long as they pay protection fees and grant R64s to their overlords. They can't actually take the sov from them, but they can harass the smaller alliances enough that they aren't willing to live in nullsec anymore. Then we have smaller alliances holding sov, but in essence the system is still the same except it is harder to keep track of the various groups since the renters aren't under a large Alliance like PBLRD or B0T. As long as there is functionally no cost for large groups to throw their capitals across the cluster the system will remain the same in function regardless of how it is delineated through in game alliances. We saw how easy it was for CFC to take out those titans that were incubating in their region.
With the combination of changes we want to see simply dumping a super blob in a system for a few hours will do little to sov ownership. Future sov wars would look very different than today. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12663
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 10:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Residency based sov. Let's say after tomorrow downtime we'll log in to see this sov model. What would it change? Nothing. Renters that live in nullsec will keep farming as they do now. Neutrals in local? POS up! Structures under attack? Batphone! Paying rent? Sure they will, because steamrolling will always be a thing, unless you turn supers into useless coffins.
Thats why there are a number of other changes. Carriers can only feild fighters (kills the unbeatable boot fleet firepower issues), supers lose their E-war immunity (in return they and titans can now dock in a station), RR is nerfed to be stacking penalised so that smaller fleets can actualy do damage to larger ones and further eats into the cap ship fleet invulnerability.
This is on top of the fact that under a residency based sov we would see the likes of the GSF reduced to being only able to hold at most a single region, most likely only half of dek. Thousands of systems would be freed up for smaller entities to grab and with mission upgrades added to outposts a single system would be able to support any number of people as opposed to the current hard cap of 10 per system now.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12665
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 14:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: So it's not the mechanics that formed the blue doughnut, it's human nature.
why are you ignoring everything we are telling you? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12668
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 20:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:
I think you ask a good question...which is why invade *insert owner's* space. However I think that you miss the other side of that question...which is why hold this space? There needs to be a mechanic that will make empires question the 'greenness of the grass'. That means no static isk printing. That means moon good needs to be dynamic. There should be a reason to frequently probe moons...especially ones that were known to be dead previously.
This means that resources will shift around and people will have to fight over them. Imagine that a region like Venal had some native technetium...it may shift around the region but always have say 8 tech moons with the potential for another 8 r64 and 8r32 etc. Those moons could be dead at any given point or with anything between a gas or whatever and r8-r64 ofc with weights toward certain things based on true sec.
This idea gets posted a lot and it gets shot down for the same reason. Scanning an entire region of moons is a nightmare nobody enjoys. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12671
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 00:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:Ok the guy put a lot of effort into writing something which favors the coalitions and changes nothing. He proposes to give points to any activity in a system and give sov based on that. The possiblities for a big coalition to exploit this are endless. And again it does not solve the real issue of self preservation which leads to the coalitions.
How do we hold onto space that has zero activity in it?
This is why residency based sov is so much better than what we have now. It would be impossible for us to hold onto more than dek let alone the thousands of systems we currently own. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12682
|
Posted - 2014.08.12 16:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:Is this the thread about siphon units ? @Kira Hizu I really don't understand how that will end stagnation. @baltec1 The only differance with activty based sov would be that we would lose some pipe systems. The interesting constellations with -1.0 -0.6 would still not change hands same goes for systems with r64 or systems needed for cynoroutes and jumpbridges. It would look like this http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/verite/20080207.png yes it is a really old map. Ahe time was based on towers and they were only put up if they were needed. What would happen is that some players would come into 0.0 with the wrong assumption that if a coalition has no SOV in the system they do not have control over it. And then they would be angry because they get killed by a 200people roaming or a 50supercapital fleet which jumped 30ly just to hotdrop them. Activity based sov is a good idea but it does not solve the issue that EVE is to small. We can control everythink within 25stargates or 25ly by jumping there within minutes and activity based sov will not change that at all.
How many times must you be told that 80% of null is empty?
So what if we dump 1000 megathrons on someones head? There are a few thousands other systems that are not getting dropped on and the one that is won't see the sov change because we had a blob in their system for a few hours unlike now. Your idea doesn't work. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12685
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 07:31:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:And you are fixed on the idea of breaking up coalitions with game mechanics.
Because its the mechanics that are the problem. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12685
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 07:45:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Because its the mechanics that are the problem. Prove that game mechanics are the problem.
Max of 10 people can rat per system = empires needing vast areas of space to support their members.
Grinding throught hundreds of millions of EHP pushes us to need big capital fleets to both attack and defend.
System sov is taken in a hanfull of fixed fights which means you blob up for just a few hours at a time.
Small fleets do zero damage to larger ones thanks to RR logi
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12685
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 08:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote: Before anomalys in most systems nobody was ratting and even in the -0.6--1.0 we needed 7belts per player.
That doesn't change the fact that we are limited to 10 per system now.
Lu Ziffer wrote: Before it was billions of ehp I personally setup all station systems in a way that you had to shoot at least 4bil ehp sometimes even 10bil ehp.
That doesn't change the fact that we still need to use massive cap fleets now.
Lu Ziffer wrote: That is so that small groups have a chance to fight (This favors small groups who don't have timezone coverage). If you can not bring 250players through 2 of the 3 TZ you do not have Timezone coverage.
Small alliances have no hope of defending a system from the CFC in a hanfull of fixed fights. It does not favor them, it makes it impossible for them to win.
Lu Ziffer wrote: Ask Rooks and Kings or their friends they know how todo that but it needs actual player skill. I know F1 is easy
Show us how much sov they hold and all the fights they are winning vs full capital and baltec fleets. In a stand up fight over a POS they would get crushed.
Lu Ziffer wrote: Wreckingball is gone and even that can be broken if you are willing to lose a few dreads.
Feel free to tell us all about how you get dreads into a cynojammed sysem or how they are now classed as subcaps. While your at it explain how a small alliance would be able to deploy 600-800 dreads.
We lose pilots all the time because their main is stuck in a nyx, its one of the oldest and most hated things about these ships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12687
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 09:23:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote: I can not change people who are not willing to get a holding char.
So **** everyone flying one? Yea, that goes down well.
Lu Ziffer wrote: Cyno jammed systems ? You remember cynojammed regions with gatecamps at every outgoing gate with bubbles 100km around the gate that was difficult to get into and we still did it. Killing a cynojammer takes 1minute and you lose 1bs doing it.
Feel free to tell us how you do that with an entire boot/wreckingball sitting on top of it.
Lu Ziffer wrote:We already changed the game so that we need less space to support the same amount of players we also changed the game to need less capitals to take sov. No they haven't.
Lu Ziffer wrote: So the only thing left is to give them enough new space so that they will not be able to control all of it.
They have done this several times in the past, every time the powerblocks just absorbed it. Adding more space will never work because it is the mechanics that are the issue. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12687
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 11:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:@Kagura Nikon I agree Dominion was bad and expansion that reduced jumpbridges to 1 per system did also nothing.
Logistics are easyly taken out by EWAR but this is difficult to handle with players who can not do more then anchor up and press F1
@baltec yes "So **** everyone flying one" who is not happy with it. If you buy a super you know what you are doing or you bought the char and ship with plex then I am not even sorry for you because you did not inform yourself well about what you were getting into. This is a mess the pilot did himself and he has to live with the consequences this is a part of the game.
How we broke camps? We accepted to lose 100bs on the way to the cyno jammer. There is no easy way.
Yes they have the expansion was called "Dominion" and before we had to get more towers in a system then the hostile force. Putting a tower with only hardeners in reinforced takes 4times longer the shooting the armor timer of an ihub. And as I told you at the time everystation system had 10towers like this totaling at 4bil ehp. So yes they made it a lot less grind then before and without anomaly no system would support 10players. Would you pls read up on this before posting something that is 100% wrong.
And they only added the droneregions which is the worst regions in term of density. It has more connections with stargates then any other area and it has systems were a carrier can jump in 150systems in one jump. That was really badly designed space in terms of how long it takes to take control and how many people you need to control it.
PL/N3 burned 200 systems in a single weekend. We took down most of the south in a week, NC was absorbed in just 2 weeks.
No matter how much new space you add we will take it. You have yet to address any of the issues I and many others have shown you. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12687
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 11:56:00 -
[31] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Other issues? pls tell me which other issue is so important for stagnation in EVE.
I told you several times. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being deliberatly stupid.
10 people cap per system for ratters = powerblocks need vast areas of space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12689
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:07:00 -
[32] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:
How has ratting anything todo with the stagnation. 50% of the big coalition members are not ratting at all. The other 50% do it 20% of the time they are online.
The fact that we need vast areas of space is part of the reason why there is no room for smaller powers. The mechanics means the powerblocks MUST hold huge areas of space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12689
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:13:00 -
[33] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:
How has ratting anything todo with the stagnation. 50% of the big coalition members are not ratting at all. The other 50% do it 20% of the time they are online.
The fact that we need vast areas of space is part of the reason why there is no room for smaller powers. The mechanics means the powerblocks MUST hold huge areas of space. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not being deliberatly stupid. You guys say space is so empty that is why we need no more space. Which is because a lot of people don't want to go ratting. Even if somenew guys came in do you really believe we would not just kill them for fun?
Answer the issue at hand.
How do you support an alliance of 200 online if only 10 can rat at a time in your system? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12689
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:20:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:200online 100afk 20roaming 10scanning 20 mining 50 ratting with 10systems this can easyly be done.
That was so difficult I need 3 second s to solve that
So you have no answer for supporting 200 ratters in a single system in the current sov null setup. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12696
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 13:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec wrote:So you have no answer for supporting 200 ratters in a single system in the current sov null setup. Why should a system support 200ratters? and how would that end 0.0 stagnation.
Because in order to reduce empire sprawl we must be able to support entire corps/alliances with a single system. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12696
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 13:33:00 -
[36] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:We maybe would need less space but we already do not use all the space we have. So then we have even more unused ratting sites and you changed nothing.
Thats because the income generated from most null systems is below high sec level 4 income. That is yet another issue with the mechanics that needs to be fixed.
Reducing the need to hold huge areas of space for reletivly small numbers of people is just one small change in a huge number of changes that is needed to fix null sov. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12698
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 14:03:00 -
[37] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote: So your hope is that after a huge number of changes the coalition will decide that they do not need to control sov within half of EVE. Then let's stop talking about the "small changes" and talk about the big changes who actually will change something.
Because getting bogged down in details or small changes does not help at all.
No. If CCP makes the changes we want it would become impossible to hold vast areas of space. Its all of these small changes that are needed because it all works together to fix null. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12699
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 14:50:00 -
[38] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote: No. If CCP makes the changes we want it would become impossible to hold vast areas of space. Its all of these small changes that are needed because it all works together to fix null.
Impossible?? You told me that if we would add 1mil systems that they would be taken by the coalitions anyway. If we had 1mil system at the same distribution then GSF would have around 70.000systems or 5 systems per character. If they would be capable to take a 1mil systems then they are capable to overcome any of your changes.
Skipping over the fact that 1 million systems is impossible for any games company server on earth to run.
Yes, under they system we want it would be impossible to hold thousands of systems. GSF would be able to hold at the very most the Dek region, most likely only half of it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12700
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 15:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yes, under they system we want it would be impossible to hold thousands of systems. GSF would be able to hold at the very most the Dek region, most likely only half of it. Prove that with math no "I believe" or "I think" . 12000 characters in 34 systems that would be 350 per system you realy want that?
Yes we do.
In order to hold space you would have to live in it. This would mean it would not be possible for the current powerblocks to hold onto the current vast empires so at least 80% of null sov would drop. The current powers would retract into much more dense empires. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12700
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 15:31:00 -
[40] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Falin Whalen wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec wrote:So you have no answer for supporting 200 ratters in a single system in the current sov null setup. Why should a system support 200ratters? and how would that end 0.0 stagnation. Because, to reduce the need for an alliance to hold vast amounts of space to rat in. Thus freeing up large swaths of "useless" space for other entities to settle in who might not be to friendly to your alliance. It took me like 3 seconds to think that one up, if I may paraphrase your useless non answer from earlier. EDIT: dangit Baltec1 Yeah, I think it might be better to make null systems be able to support more players, like high sec systems have missions which spawn infinitely, so replicating something similar for null would be the best way to do that. I'm not sure if missions can be botted? I don't think they can because each mission is different. Then you have to consider the economy, is this going to be a massive ISK faucet? Because that could break the economy, I would say the best way to control that is to keep the liquid isk from missioning and bounties to a minimum and instead drop modules and items because the market will control the payouts from that. Maybe it's time to get rid of most liquid ISK payouts across the game. There are not as many ISK sinks as people might think... for example when players build ships and they get blown up some people think thats an isk sink but its not, that's just isk moving from one player to another but not actually leaving the economy. So all those massive T1 fleet battles in null and low are not actually removing all that much ISK from the game. Only faction ships/items purchased in lp stores, clones, trading fees, sov payments or basically any time you pay isk to npc entities is an isk sink, but there are not enough of them to counter the trillions of isk that would be made from unlimited ratting in null.
Missions are by far the easiest answer. NPC null mission already offer greater reward and inject far less isk per ratter than anoms do. As far as botting goes, anything can be botted. Thankfully CCP is rather good at whacking them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12700
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 15:33:00 -
[41] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote: How to you suppose to make it impossible to hold 1000 systems with a coalition? Do not come up with some content lacking phrase like the last 15 post you did.
Go look at null and its activity levels.
All of those systems with a handfull of jumps and nobody active would drop sov. Those systems make up 80% of sov null. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12705
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 16:35:00 -
[42] - Quote
Lu Ziffer wrote:Ok let us make your idea real. We increase the maximum number of supported characters per system to about 500.(how does not matter we all know 50versions how todo that) Funny thing would be that a roaming in this systems would be suicide and probably the gates would have so many bubbles that you would not even try. Then we decrease jumpcabability and bridges by 75% so that large coalitions can not use wrecking ball and super tactics everywhere. This will increase the time to move capitals significantly because they are not able to jump over empty space between some regions.This will end all jumpfreighter logistic and probaly most capital production. Flying freighters through stargates and making 200au freighter warps is so much fun, protecting them is even more fun. Then we have to take care of the capability to move fleets through stargatesotherwise we would be able to kill the small groups with supcapitals. Easyiest way would be to return to hardware 10 years ago, the lag would be so painfull nobody would want to move. Other option would be somekind of artifical number of how many players can use the gate per hour.
By that point you would have destroyed the game but at least the coalitions can live with 25000members in 50system and they are not capable to strike smaller groups with overwhelming force.
Nerfing jump range doesn't nerf boot fleet/wreckingball. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12709
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:19:00 -
[43] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Falin Whalen wrote:Lu Ziffer wrote:baltec wrote:So you have no answer for supporting 200 ratters in a single system in the current sov null setup. Why should a system support 200ratters? and how would that end 0.0 stagnation. Because, to reduce the need for an alliance to hold vast amounts of space to rat in. Thus freeing up large swaths of "useless" space for other entities to settle in who might not be to friendly to your alliance. It took me like 3 seconds to think that one up, if I may paraphrase your useless non answer from earlier. EDIT: dangit Baltec1 wait a minute. Either the space is useless to you and you don't use it. Or you need all this space to support all your ratters. Which is it?
both.
The space might be near useless but the mechanics dictate that we need it. Welcome to the headache that is null sov space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12715
|
Posted - 2014.08.16 14:20:00 -
[44] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:
It is not about slowing it down. It is about making eve bigger enough.
Why someone should be able to move easily large amount of forces to another side of eve , or just 3 regions away fast? Eve is for fun , and in order to generate fun there have to be a lot small scale conflicts.
This is not about what is good or what is bad. This is how to make fun to the bigest amount of people, as this lead to bigger amount of players. Some groups like to farm, they will have blue in 2 regions away. Some people like to fight? They will have targets in next constelation.
The main difference is that there will be no more cyno for a boored third party that will drop 50 motherships to kill 2 capitals of smaller groups brawling in fun.
Nerfing jump range does nothing to stop the current ****** affairs of null and infact makes it even worse for the small players (good luck getting supplies to the far corners of EVE). Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 04:00:00 -
[45] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Nerfing jump range or jump range mechanic is ONE of MANY items that needs to be changed.
It really isn't.
One way or another, we will deploy our forces wherever we need to. You can force us to deploy only by using gates and force capitals to need to cyno system by system and we would still be able to do it. Nerfs to power projection will not fix anything in null and cause a number of issues with things such as supply lines for smaller powers who have to get through enemy space to get to their space. You will infact only make it easier for the CFC and N3/PL to defend our space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 07:56:00 -
[46] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:But those changes are not about killing cfc or n3. They are not about killing blobs or gigantic fights. Nor about making smaller alliances untouchable in their space. Read previous posts. Goals: - have more fun ( every one states that nullsec is booring now , and ony ting you can get is a tidi fight) - more small scale conflicts (without constant - 50 motherships on grid - more conflicts will be possible ) - no more empty space , just small independent groups moving there (space that you dont use will be easily conquerable by any one ) - more dedication to your deployments and space you take ( taking space will be easier after changes people suggest - the real issue is to hold it , as you need to live in this space. When you deploy, no jump/ deathclone jumps to your home space , alts will be a must ) - less hotdrops and (super)capital dependency (20 mothership hotdrop on t1 cruiser in lowsec , CCP ... ) - and more
And nerfing jump bridges and jump drives will get you none of those things. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 11:23:00 -
[47] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Sorry but it will do it.
For example 2 titans allow to relocate 2-3 full fleets across 3 regions in a matter of minutes.
So we are talking about 700+ players crossing 2-3 regions ( let say 60 jumps ) in 5 minutes, doing 2 jumps.
Without this ability they will have to do those 60 jumps, and moving 700 people across 2-3 regions by gates is around 1 hour at least , and we are talking about going one way.
Tell me, how often people will want to spend 2 hours just to move and return , after attending some timer? What is also important , without possibility to relocate fast across the map, creating few timers forces defender to choose the one really important.
Something that is not working now properly, are titan bridges, and jump bridges that allow one fleet to attend all timers at the same time. How? You only send handful of ships to each timer capable of pumping some structure and provide base tackle , while core of your fleet just sit on titan waiting where someone could escalate. If someone will escalate, cyno chain, midpoint titans, and whole fleet (s) will be on place before enemy could inflict any serious damage or clear the tackle.
So like you see , limiting jump bridges , titan bridges , jump range , will have extreme impact on eve battlefield , and sov map. You will not be able to defend a region sitting 2-3 regions away, even defending a constellation in a region could be an issue, when you are not in this constellation. While going by gates , someone can bomb you, catch stranglers , slow you down, prepare traps or just wait on your fleet 1 jump before the timer guarding the gate.
We get around the lack of jump bridges by setting off a bit earlier. You forget that we used to do this before we had these toys and if you make caps harder to move then they will simply be moved closer to the target before the fight. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 14:16:00 -
[48] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: Why? How many times you can fight in the same setup, the same gang, in TIDI 10% ( real 0.5%) for 7 hours.
Been doing this for the last 4 years. 8 if you include pre tidi.
Face it, you cant fix anything by trying to nerf power projection. We will always get our forces to where we need it, even if it means warping gates from one side of EVE to the other. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 14:43:00 -
[49] - Quote
afkalt wrote:It would make it a hell of a lot hard to fight on two (or more) fronts though.
Nah, we have the manpower to fight on 3 fronts and still have enough people left over to interdict empire space, raise all kinds of hell on hostile POS networks and run home defence ops.
You have to remember that our enemies would be in the same situation as us in regards to being slowed down by any nerfs to power projection so nothing would change, just the speed at which it happens. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 16:02:00 -
[50] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Will you fly 50 jumps to save an r64 tower in lowsec, ech of those r64 or even r32 towers?
Yes, we did this the other day.
Anthar Thebess wrote: Will you fly 90 jumps to save an -0.1 system that someone will put in reinforce timers day after you head home as nothing was going on when you where sitting in this constellation for 2 weeks?
We have sigs stationed much closer and we also have these things called jump clones. We don't have to.
Anthar Thebess wrote: The point is how much you , and NCPL will be willing to travel to save some timers. Now you just use 1-2 titans or boot fleet, after changes people are requesting you will have to be on the timer, without knowing if attacker will show up or no. Question is how much this empty space will be worth to you when you actually will have to put work, and what is most important time , a lot of time, of a lot of people.
I think that you will find many of those moons, systems - not worth the effort.
Nothing in what you put would stop us from continuing to own what we currently own. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 18:37:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote: We have sigs stationed much closer and we also have these things called jump clones. We don't have to.
those "things called jump clones" (hurrrr) are a one trick every X hour pony. Of course you can start podding yourself after each goal is accomplished I suppose. But that comes with it's own costs as well. You just don't want to admit that maybe blinking fleets everywhere on demand is an issue. No worries, you don't have to agree. But you will have to settle with being biased and incorrect.
Jumpclone every 24 hours. Timers last around 2 days.
We have the time.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 18:44:00 -
[52] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: Why people are not complaining about those ships being OP, or broken?
Everyone does.
Boot fleet/wrecking ball are horrible things that must be ended. They make taking space impossible for the two powerblocks let alone any smaller alliances. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12720
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 18:54:00 -
[53] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:
We have the time.
You have the time to what? The time to miss an opportunity to defend something on the opposite side of the game if you can't be everywhere at once? Exacly. I think that if changes that people are asking will be applied. CFC could loose around 50% of their space. N3 will be left with around 1/3 or 1/4 of their current space - the same goes for PL. Rest of space will be ~to take~ for every small group, or new players.
Not by nerfing power projection you wont. We will still be able to hold everything we currently own. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12722
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 19:48:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:If you keep repeating it, it MUST be the truth
Perfectly describes what you are doing right now. You have been told several times now why nerfing power projection will make zero impact on sov space other make everything take longer.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote: Did you come to this thread to discuss mechanics? Or just to repeatedly insist on closely held beliefs.
Posted what we want several times.
Residency based sov:
In order to claim sov you must live in the space. Around 80% of systems are currently empty yet we can maintain sov, under a residency based system it would become impossible to hold these systems. Thousands of systems would be free to take for small alliances.
Empire Sprawl:
One of the big reasons we have these vast tracts of space is because of the way the mechanics handle ratting. Currently a good system can support 10 ratters at most, poor systems less. So as you can tell the CFC requires a huge amount of space to support its members. Ironicly the vast bulk of this space goes unused because in terms of isk generation your better off running level 3s in empire. Nevertheless we need to hold this space.
In order for residency based sov to work we must get rid of this need to hold huge amounts of space. Null mission agents are the perfect answer as they allow any number of people to live in one system, generate less new isk per mission runner than anoms and the rewards are higher than high sec. This will eliminate the need for empire spawl.
Remote Repair:
One of the biggest issues with fighting in nullsec is that smaller fleets cannot hurt large ones thanks to RR support. There is no point in attacking if you cant hurt your enemy so the only answer is to stand down. This problem only gets worse when you start dropping capitals which are now all but immortal vs subcaps. The answer here is to implement diminishing returns on RR so that past a point more reps add nothing.
This will result in much more bloody fights and smaller fleets can stand a chance to at the very least cause some damage.
Capitals, supers and titans:
A pain to everyone including the people that fly them.
Wreckingball/boot fleet needs to die. Carriers should at the very least lose the ability to drop sentries, probably even just be able to launch fighters. This combined with the RR nerf would end the near immortal deathballs.
Supers meanwhile need two things. First they should lose their Ewar immunity, then in return they and titans gain the ability to dock in stations. This solves the long standing problem of high skilled player leaving due to being stuck in these space coffins and getting bored with life. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12722
|
Posted - 2014.08.17 21:09:00 -
[55] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
What!?!?! DID I JUST READ?!
All things being equal, larger entities will usually have the upper hand. Numbers are numbers no changing that.
We aren't going to make a world where smaller fleets beats larger ones by nerfing defense. I KNOW you know that.
All things equal, the smaller fleet will just get rolled over by the large one faster. Unless you're suggesting a world where subcaps can more easily kill caps? And that's not a small fleet vs large fleet discussion at all. That's a shift in game role tilting severely towards subcaps.
Nerfing the ability to keep a target up and alive is a nerf to defense. To guarantee an outcome past a certain offensive dps figure (blob size).
But nerfing the ability to defend only guarantees someone will lose in that matching instead of the only other possible outcome (stalemate). I'm afraid doing what you suggest might only help already skewed battles turn into steamrolls and holding off an onslaught literally impossible.
Yes, definitely bloodier battles. And no way to stop throwing waves of crap dps against significantly more valuable targets.
A few years ago small fleet we able to take on much larger fleets and while they lost the battle they often caused more damage. RR changes now means that today large fleets with a lot of logi often dont lose a single ship while the enemy loses everything. There is zero chance for a small fleet to do anything so they don't bother undocking. This also happens with subcaps vs capital blobs and capital vs capital fights.
If smaller alliances are to ever be a thing in null we need to nerf RR in fleets so that they can stand any chance of doing anything vs the likes of the CFC. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12722
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 03:55:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:
A few years ago small fleet we able to take on much larger fleets and while they lost the battle they often caused more damage. RR changes now means that today large fleets with a lot of logi often dont lose a single ship while the enemy loses everything. There is zero chance for a small fleet to do anything so they don't bother undocking. This also happens with subcaps vs capital blobs and capital vs capital fights.
If smaller alliances are to ever be a thing in null we need to nerf RR in fleets so that they can stand any chance of doing anything vs the likes of the CFC.
It doesn't have anything to do with smaller fleets vs larger fleets. It has to do with smaller ships overcoming significant defenses. I don't want to go all "grrrr goons" on you but you can't believe people wouldn't see what this would do. If this was done, then the defensive rep ability of any one target will be X and all you need to do is field X to defeat it. For anyone able to field X as cheaply as possible, winning would only be a matter of persistence. And neither skill nor scale would be able to amount a better defense than X. The bigger blob still wins (as before), but removing any ability by the defensive party to hold against it. You're making this sound like: click here for 'The Secret To Fixing Eve CCP Doesn't Want You To Know About'What you're talking about is the ability to throw cheap waves of DPS against any defense and being guaranteed offensive progress.
It has everything to do with smaller fleets. Fights today are entirely one sided with zero chance of winning if you dont bring a set amount of logi. We are forever being told the enemy has stood down and it is always because they lack critical mass for logi or lack the firepower to break ours. We do exactly the same.
You dont see mid size roaming gangs anymore or hear about small fleets winning against much bigger ones like we used to. RR has become too powerful and is limiting fights. If you want to fix null you must allow smaller alliances to be able to cause damage to the big boys, otherwise they will be slaughtered every time.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12724
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 06:34:00 -
[57] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:Problem with that Baltec is that the bigger alliance will always win. You (the small alliance) can only kamikazee the other guy (the big alliance) for so long. As soon as everyone has exhausted their assets (alliance/corp and individual) the bigger alliance that had more assets still wins. Logi or no, the bigger guy wins.
If you want to nerf Logi, then put an "explosion radius" effect on the shield/armor/cap transporter. Caps heal caps, T2 heal BS, T1 cruiser heal cruiser and Frigs heal frigs. Gives a fleet a reason to run squads/wings w/ the appropriate ships/sizes
Bigger alliances always win right now. If you want smaller powers in nullsec you have to nerf RR otherwise we will continue to have one sided slaughters. Having diminishing returns on logi means they continue to be effective in smaller fleet roams but in big fleet engagements they dont make one side unkillable. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 10:40:00 -
[58] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:
A few years ago small fleet we able to take on much larger fleets and while they lost the battle they often caused more damage. RR changes now means that today large fleets with a lot of logi often dont lose a single ship while the enemy loses everything. There is zero chance for a small fleet to do anything so they don't bother undocking. This also happens with subcaps vs capital blobs and capital vs capital fights.
If smaller alliances are to ever be a thing in null we need to nerf RR in fleets so that they can stand any chance of doing anything vs the likes of the CFC.
It doesn't have anything to do with smaller fleets vs larger fleets. It has to do with smaller ships overcoming significant defenses. I don't want to go all "grrrr goons" on you but you can't believe people wouldn't see what this would do. If this was done, then the defensive rep ability of any one target will be X and all you need to do is field X to defeat it. For anyone able to field X as cheaply as possible, winning would only be a matter of persistence. And neither skill nor scale would be able to amount a better defense than X. The bigger blob still wins (as before), but removing any ability by the defensive party to hold against it. You're making this sound like: click here for 'The Secret To Fixing Eve CCP Doesn't Want You To Know About'What you're talking about is the ability to throw cheap waves of DPS against any defense and being guaranteed offensive progress. It has everything to do with smaller fleets. Fights today are entirely one sided with zero chance of winning if you dont bring a set amount of logi. We are forever being told the enemy has stood down and it is always because they lack critical mass for logi or lack the firepower to break ours. We do exactly the same. You dont see mid size roaming gangs anymore or hear about small fleets winning against much bigger ones like we used to. RR has become too powerful and is limiting fights. If you want to fix null you must allow smaller alliances to be able to cause damage to the big boys, otherwise they will be slaughtered every time. Your doing that thing where you just repeat yourself without addressing what has just been put in front of you. The larger fleet will only roll over the smaller even faster,with no effective defense being able to be mounted by the smaller in a defensive situation. Your change doesn't balance anything, you haven't showed where it does. You haven't shown how this doesn't provide the same advantage to a larger fleet vs a smaller one (all things are equal here) You aren't balancing fights to the advantage of small fleets; though perhaps to the advantage of larger but cheaper fleets You're only doing away with any ability to construct a defense against any fleet past a certain size. It's amazing you think this will fix 0.0.. but power projection? Oh, no, that's nothing, *wave arms* look over here at this RR nerf
You ignore the fact that it used to happen before CCP buffed RR.
We currently are in a situation where the bigger fleet takes near no losses while the smaller one gets wiped out entirely. People wont fight if they can kill anything which is why RR must be nerfed so that smaller alliances can at least stand some chance. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 10:59:00 -
[59] - Quote
This from a pair of NPC corp alts who have likely never been in null for more than a month.
I have indeed told you exactly why the RR change is needed, you are simply chosing to ignore it because you seem to think that the current situation of unkillable blobs and one sided slaughters is better than a smaller fleet being able to at the very least take a large number of ships with them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 13:10:00 -
[60] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:Lol, better attack me vs my points eh baltec?
You literally haven't explained anything. Stating a thing doesn't magically make it so.
See it works like this:
In a situation of equal distanced goals across eve A,B,C ,D; by nerfing power projection and slowing response times we can provide a situation where only two strategic goals can be accomplished in X time without utilization of mechanics that offer other delimiting and impacting downsides. This changes the status quo as timer based defenses can be strategized by region and thus exploited whereas they cannot be currently
Your retort to that is "nothing will change we r persistant" (ignoring no one mentioned YOU to begin with :p)
You then state if we remove remote reps smaller fleets will win.
I asked how this does any sort of thing (how on earth does rr removal help 50 of a hull stand against 150)?
"Well it just does, it used to happen dog"
In fact, I'm in fleets all the time where our ability to better use RR is the sole reason we're able to stand against larger groups.
You not only haven't provided any logical proof of your statements, current reality contradicts the way you seem to think offense/defense works.
EG deal with threat A
SV deal with threat B
Freedom deal with threat C
FA deal with threat C
That leaves several other sigs for further deployment. At the same time our enemy cannot deploy as quickly as before so we have the exact same situation as now only slower. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 13:17:00 -
[61] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:RR is good,
You can kill RR with many ways, I believe you need more f1 peasants in megas than in ecm damp ceptors or anything that can kill the RR.
Past a point you cant, that is the problem. Right now fight all go the same way, one side takes few losses the other gets wiped out. A fight with even losses on both sides just doesn't happen anymore. Throw in a boot fleet and the enemy subcaps can either quit the fight or die without any hope of killing anything. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 13:46:00 -
[62] - Quote
http://themittani.com/features/rethinking-nullsec
A more in depth look at nulls problems including RR. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 14:52:00 -
[63] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:http://themittani.com/features/rethinking-nullsec
A more in depth look at nulls problems including RR. Yes that article isn't news. Nor is it filled with much aside from fantasy replacements for RR that are all shot down as short sighted by its own author and contingent on many other unspecified changes needing to take place. It's right that the paradigm needs to change but attacks that from the complete wrong direction. The problem is the need to field a ball of motherships and titans to begin with. And that will not be accomplished nor nullified by hamfisted changes to pvp logistics as a whole in some vain attempt to change only the largest null battleballs.
Logistics are exactly the cause of these massive fleets. You need to bring the firepower to alpha ships before reps can land which means massive fleets. Boot fleet and wrecking ball are the natural evolution of the logi/alpha meta that the current mechanics demand. Smaller alliances have no hope of even killing anything in fights vs the big powers.
Yes, people dont like to hear this. People dont want to lose the current logistics meta. But it needs to happen in order for smaller alliances to be viable in null sec no mater what sov system is put in place. Hell my name will one of the first called out in any fight, but I accept that this change needs to happen. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 15:11:00 -
[64] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Logistics are exactly the cause of these massive fleets. You need to bring the firepower to alpha ships before reps can land which means massive fleets. Boot fleet and wrecking ball are the natural evolution of the logi/alpha meta that the current mechanics demand. Smaller alliances have no hope of even killing anything in fights vs the big powers.
.
Try capacitor warfare or e-war. The tools are there for you to deal with these issues. It is up to the players to find counters to the current meta, not CCP. You goons are always asking for the game to be changed when you can't figure something out. Usually there is always a solution and you just aren't willing to see it or try it. Your problems are caused by your own hubris and unwillingness to adapt.
Cap warfare doesnt work and ECM wont either. Both do poorly in large fleets as it is impossible to cordinate them. We do use damps in FYF but they are useless vs wreckingball fleets and only marginally effective vs subcaps.
The only people who think ECM and neuts are viable are people have never fought in null sec wars. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 15:15:00 -
[65] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:No.
Massive fleets are the cause of massive fleets. You're just trying to sell some 'new truth' at this point.
And your solution isn't going to change any of that. There will remain (or increase) the need to throw massive numbers at a target goal.
All it does is eliminate defensive options so that fights would boil down to spam of dps/ewar. Absolutely nothing you've said here or contained in those articles suggests otherwise. No 'small fleets now defeating superior numbers' nor how this magically breaks up huge fleet sizes.
But do you know what would break those fleets up?
Needing to divide themselves to commit to fights on seperate fronts and removing the ability for everyone to instantly respond to assist their friends on the opposite side of known space.
I already showed you that we already split our forces up. The exact same deployment structure we use now would continue to be effective if you remove jump bridges, and all capitals entirely from the game. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 15:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:baltec1 wrote: Both do poorly in large fleets as it is impossible to cordinate them. . Sounds like Goons need to learn to play instead of face rolling to victory via numbers. There is a solution, you are just unwilling put forth the effort.
More like you need to go learn more about this game. Tell me, if these weapon systems are so good why does nobody use them against us? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 16:05:00 -
[67] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:Look, I'm honestly not out to just play your devils advocate. You make some reasonable points. And I'm certainly not ttacking your organization.
If you have an issue with massive balls (lol)... of capital ships RR each other
its far more healthy for 00 landscape to disincentivize those 'all in one system' fights and far more measured and logical to look at the abilities and roles of cap and supercaps themselves than to think the fix is to rework eve combat mechanics from the ground up.
The mechanics need it.
The problem is that you are looking at power projection as a problem when it is just a symptom of other problems. The way to solve the issue of power projection is to rework sov so that you cannot hold hundreds to thousands of empty systems. Residency based sov would reduce our space from half the galaxy to just Dek. This means we also lose the vast bulk of the jumpbridge network. Without the need to guard huge regions of space the issue of titan bridging fleets from one end of the galaxy to the other also vanishes. Infact it becomes downright dangerous due to us not holding the space.
We then need to reduce the need to have massive fleets. Residency sov again helps greatly by removing the need to form up for just 4 fights at fixed times and instead needing to attack someone space 24/7. Huge fleets simply don't do this job well nor will dumping a wrecking ball in a system for a few hours. The RR changes would further erode into the need for having large fleets to alpha through RR support. It would now be viable to throw cheap, disposable fleets such as shield rax into the heart of a battleship fleets and just smash away or even run gorilla fleets like we used to in 2007 and cause a lot of damage. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 16:09:00 -
[68] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:baltec1 wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:baltec1 wrote: Both do poorly in large fleets as it is impossible to cordinate them. . Sounds like Goons need to learn to play instead of face rolling to victory via numbers. There is a solution, you are just unwilling put forth the effort. More like you need to go learn more about this game. Tell me, if these weapon systems are so good why does nobody use them against us? You are missing the point and putting up a straw man. When have Goons ever won anything without having superior numbers? All you people know is one way to fight, the easy way, and you aren't willing to put forth the effort and rise to the challenge to find out what works, you would rather ask CCP to change the game for you. Pathetic. Nullsec stagnation is purely centered around the unwillingness of the 2 great power blocs to fight. You put yourselves into this situation. Get a clue and try convincing your leadership of what needs to be done for the good of EVE. If you people weren't so afraid of losing, EVE wouldn't be in the state that it is in.
Ah so you are a grr goon poster.
Its funny how, if ECM is such a viable weapon, that nobody uses it. Infact the last people to use it was, well, us in alpha fleets. It was retired because ECM ships are both easily removed from a fight and provide very little advantage as logi simply fitted ECCM. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 16:17:00 -
[69] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Your problem is that you guys are only capable of thinking one dimensional. I don't expect you to know anything complex about EVE. "Unga Smash" is all you guys do. It isn't impressive, its just the huddling of the masses.
Nobody expects you to come up with the solution. But given that the only limitations to your problems are complexity and organization, i'd say it is well balanced.
"its too hard" should not be your excuse. Stop blaming CCP and start blaming your leadership, sheeple.
Again, if ECM was viable why does not a single large fleet in the entire game use it? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 16:28:00 -
[70] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote: Why? How many times you can fight in the same setup, the same gang, in TIDI 10% ( real 0.5%) for 7 hours.
Been doing this for the last 4 years. 8 if you include pre tidi. Face it, you cant fix anything by trying to nerf power projection. We will always get our forces to where we need it, even if it means warping gates from one side of EVE to the other. Indeed power projection nerf does not SOLVE anything. But some level of reduction of massive fleets mobility would be a good icing in the cake of a reform of 0.0 warfare that make large fleets less needed. A slight impediment and a reduction of the desire when combined make much larger effect over human psycology than eithe rof the 2 in separate.
They just doubled the cost of jumping them, It had no impact on us. We would find a way to deploy them. The answer is as I put further up, deal with the reasons behind needing them in the first place. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12725
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 16:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Again, if ECM was viable why does not a single large fleet in the entire game use it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument." How typical. Try to think in more than one dimension, guy.
That's not a straw man. You should stop trying to shoehorn tippias' thing into an argument and actually do your homework on fleet comps over the years. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12728
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 17:27:00 -
[72] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:Look, I'm honestly not out to just play your devils advocate. You make some reasonable points. And I'm certainly not ttacking your organization.
If you have an issue with massive balls (lol)... of capital ships RR each other
its far more healthy for 00 landscape to disincentivize those 'all in one system' fights and far more measured and logical to look at the abilities and roles of cap and supercaps themselves than to think the fix is to rework eve combat mechanics from the ground up. The mechanics need it. The problem is that you are looking at power projection as a problem when it is just a symptom of other problems. The way to solve the issue of power projection is to rework sov so that you cannot hold hundreds to thousands of empty systems. Residency based sov would reduce our space from half the galaxy to just Dek. This means we also lose the vast bulk of the jumpbridge network. Without the need to guard huge regions of space the issue of titan bridging fleets from one end of the galaxy to the other also vanishes. Infact it becomes downright dangerous due to us not holding the space. We then need to reduce the need to have massive fleets. Residency sov again helps greatly by removing the need to form up for just 4 fights at fixed times and instead needing to attack someone space 24/7. Huge fleets simply don't do this job well nor will dumping a wrecking ball in a system for a few hours. The RR changes would further erode into the need for having large fleets to alpha through RR support. It would now be viable to throw cheap, disposable fleets such as shield rax into the heart of a battleship fleets and just smash away or even run gorilla fleets like we used to in 2007 and cause a lot of damage. This is what I mean, I can agree with pretty much all of this, But its shortsighted to balance the foundation of defensive logistics across this huge game around such a specific issue. I think the sov endgame issues can quickly be seen by those in the coalitions as "the game". But for the vast majority its not. It's your game. (Insert "ruining your game" goon slogan irony here) In the game as a whole, at any given time there can be several to dozens of mid-tier engagements across low sec and npc 00, fights comprising of 20-150 participents. frig/af gangs, hacs, you name it, a couple carriers get dropped, escalation is welcome here and is what differentiates between a good day and an epic one. All of this does revolve around the intermingle of EW, RR, dynamic battles that dont boil down to cracking a ball of motherships. To alter the how logistics work to fix sov and coalition level engagements is nuts. Yes, sov needs changed, caps need changed, but resetting pvp as we know it is not only the wrong thing to do, but risks shifting the dynamics of less-than-1000 player fights into something less diverse and more lopsided towards a flat dps slug out. Make a case for removing remote cap rep mods entirely if you want. But needing and using logistics in a fight isn't a problem to 99% of the game. It's just another (welcome) tool in the toolbox. One that remains interesting by having MORE tools in it ,not less.
Thats why I ask for diminishing returns. The smaller fleets RR would work as normal even when using a handfull of carriers or supers. Its only when you start usinging them in large numbers in big fleets that the diminishing returns would hit. Most people in EVE who dont take part in the big fights simply wont notice the change. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12729
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 18:05:00 -
[73] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec wrote: Thats why I ask for diminishing returns. The smaller fleets RR would work as normal even when using a handfull of carriers or supers. Its only when you start usinging them in large numbers in big fleets that the diminishing returns would hit. Most people in EVE who dont take part in the big fights simply wont notice the change.
Even if that much is appropiate the devils in the details. Then there is the previously stated concern of null fights boiling down to cheap dps spam. I'm not sold that this is a very progressive trade None of this invalidates the need for power projection to be limited and time consuming. In many regards it would reinforce the need for every reason I've already cited.
Its part of many changes that invalidates needing to project big fleets and full super fleets.
Null fights having cheap dps fleets attacking each other is way more fun than fleet after fleet standing down. It would open up a lot more options. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12731
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 07:17:00 -
[74] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:Falin Whalen wrote: There is no game mechanic that prevents our leaders from destroying one another.
I'm glad we agree. You are already overextended and are only able to maintain what you have now because of peace. Greed has gotten the better of your leadership, and the game suffers because of it. I'm sure they are constantly trying to find ways to keep you engaged in meaningless battles while they accumulate several lifetimes worth of PLEXs. The players have the ability to create the content. I'm sure CCP is having a hell of a time trying to figure out how change these mechanics when you guys refuse to fight each other.
Both sides have impossible to break defensive fleets. We could wage a forever war and get nowhere, hence why we dont bother. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12731
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 07:44:00 -
[75] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote: Both sides have impossible to break defensive fleets. We could wage a forever war and get nowhere, hence why we dont bother.
What about if jumps were nerfed in such a manner that they couldn't bring their "impossible to break defensive fleet" to bear? Or you bringing your own fleet to bear? Remove the bridging and jumping from the game and have everyone stuck doing gate jumps from system to system. The only reason the fleets are so unbreakable is that the fleet can get there quickly (and so can yours) and reinforcements are but a couple jumps away. Slow that down a bit and you won't have the ability to project power over the whole area. But hey "everyone would burn out trying to move the fleets around" honestly I don't see it as anywhere near the problem people make it out to be.
We would be in the exact same situation as now only it would take 4 hours rather than 2. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12732
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 11:16:00 -
[76] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote: think of new ideas not just some nerfs! if you nerf the RR with stacking penalties I believe we will see fleets of logistics just because we can bring them!
@baltec1 you need people that are not
-FC kill the broadcasted target -Yes my lord, as you wish. can you make a fleet with 100 ships of electronic warfare and those 100 have a brain and use it? It is difficult but I believe it is possible.
It wouldn't matter how many small fleets you would make, they would still have diminishing returns on RR because they are all repping the one ship. If you want to break the N+1 meta for fleet combat then you must deal with the need to bring more logi to counter more alpha to counter more logi.
Until you deal with RR smaller alliances will simply not be viable in sov space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12732
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 12:06:00 -
[77] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:
Yes I see the point of N + 1 but and there is a big but because you have many ways to counter those logistics, let me see. 1. lock-breaker bombs 2. ECM ships kitsune blackbird falcon scorpion 3. dampening ships 4. a good spy! (you have your pilot in enemy fleet you field him the FC with 5 more ppl target him so he broadcast for reps now and then or have him in perma rep with 10-20 ships hitting hit (you get the point) 5. get a warp in right in their face (probe them)
all the above need effort but you still want F1 peasants in a DPS ship to make the difference in sov null?
Nope RR is not a problem, you can brainstorm in something else now.
So why does nobody use those "many counters"?
Lock breaker bombs are never used, they are simply a waste of time and ships.
ECM ships are no longer used because logi simply fit ECCM and the ECM ships are easily removed from fights. They were retired from every powerblocks fleet comps several years ago.
Damping ships are used but require an entire fleet to be dedicated to it so it simply is not a viable option for smaller alliances as it lacks the firepower and is rather soft and squishy. CFC use it as a secondary fleet.
Anyone in the GIA can tell you that spies in enemy fleets are of limited use and do little good in a fight. Burning a spy in every fleet fight simply isn't viable and a waste of assets.
We already do this, it wont help a smaller fleet. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12732
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 12:20:00 -
[78] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:baltec1 wrote:
So why does nobody use those "many counters"?
Lock breaker bombs are never used, they are simply a waste of time and ships.
ECM ships are no longer used because logi simply fit ECCM and the ECM ships are easily removed from fights. They were retired from every powerblocks fleet comps several years ago.
Damping ships are used but require an entire fleet to be dedicated to it so it simply is not a viable option for smaller alliances as it lacks the firepower and is rather soft and squishy. CFC use it as a secondary fleet.
Anyone in the GIA can tell you that spies in enemy fleets are of limited use and do little good in a fight. Burning a spy in every fleet fight simply isn't viable and a waste of assets.
We already do this, it wont help a smaller fleet.
ok go play planetside then, spawn kill till killed re-spawn. you have five ways to get into the logistics and still you want to nerf them because of the effort and the manpower that is needed. yes, I believe you are right! it is op!
I literally just told you why these five things are not counters to logi. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12732
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 12:40:00 -
[79] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:Yes you told me but what is the counter to 4 mega fleets?
5 mega fleets? 6 mega fleets?
an AOE old titan DD?
in large scale fights there is nothing anyone that can do it is just N+1, that **** must be stopped.
My opinion for the big coalitions and those big fights is the management. Today it is easy to manage a coalition with out of game tools, with all those standings and all that naps and faps.
an alliance should not have more than 5 standings (10max) tokens after those tokens you have to buy standings for max time a day and both parties pay the same amount of isk.
Also make the management not possible out of game. if someone has to be 24/7 logged on to manage an alliance he will burn the first week and there you go no more big alliances no more standings more fights more small entities.
This is my opinion to the problem of stagnation, it is not the tracking titans it is not the wrecking ball it is not those 2k megas in my overview nor the 1k males.
Why not making the game more easy and lets ask for fleets with no limit in wings and squads! that way we will be happy till the end of the servers.
That is a pants oh head argument. CCP cant nerf the likes of jabber, mumble, TS, private forums and tools such as garpa. You would shitcan many other tools people use and not make a dent in our organisation. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12732
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 12:55:00 -
[80] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:
giving a bonus to a ship or nerfing a shipclass is not going to resolve the problem of null space.
So you nerf API.
How will this help you when a small alliance cant kill our baltec fleets let alone when they come up against a wreckingball. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12733
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 15:29:00 -
[81] - Quote
Quote:
This is my option because I see one leader in every big alliance with some directors and after that the auditing is based on programs the only thing you need is more peasants to press F1.
This is where you show your lack of experience with running something like the CFC. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12736
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 16:28:00 -
[82] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:Please tell me if you had as an alliance 10 standing tokens and no external tools for anything how the CFC would be?
Can you imagine? I lack in the experience of something that big, but I see that it would fall apart as any other bloc. That is how I image a game. Log on play the game.
Atm you only need to open your PC join TS mumble and play some other games till the ping pop up in your screen.
I imagine people to log on and co-operate in getting the day to day work done.
I Imagine smaller entities, but that's how far my imagination goes.
I'm a casual player and I have in my computer 2-3 out of game tools and believe me those tools help me a lot, I believe in an alliance level some tools are saviors are the angel from heaven.
as you point I lack the experience in running something that big, but tell me, one day you don't have all those tools what would you do?
how do you imagine the game we play?
How does CCP nerf jabber? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12744
|
Posted - 2014.08.19 19:36:00 -
[83] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:
He's not talking about jabber, he's talking about all of the API dependent checks and services that make it possible for a relatively small number of people able to manage a huge number of people, structures, timers and the like. I say answer his question: what would CFC do if the API servers went down and everything that these API servers provided was no longer available out of game?
I'm guessing either you'd build more out of game tools that players have to put information into, or that more management activities would occur in game. Either way, that puts players back in the game, and if someone in the information chain drops the ball, content is created.
I'll fess up and say I have no experience with alliance level leadership (and I don't want it) but I truly do want to know, honestly, what would happen without the API?
We would continue as normal just as we did when the API did go down.
Killing API will not do anything to stop empire sprawl, it will not help small fleets take on bigger fleets that they cannot harm and it will not break up our coalitions. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12753
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 09:43:00 -
[84] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote: I don't know if this will solve the sov null problem but if you don't have problem with that (closing all third party apps) you can go on and tell in your posts nerf RR and close all third party.
yes, I'm still on drugs :)
Not a single one of those has anything to do with a smaller fleet being unable to damage larger ones. Also, as I said, you can remove all API and we will still operate as we do now. Our alliances pre date API, we dont need it to continue. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12754
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 10:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:If you nerf logi, the game just reverts back to the previous Alpha over sustained DPS crap. I doubt that this is any better.
It is a lot better than having smaller fleets completely unable to even cause any damage to a larger one. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12755
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 15:56:00 -
[86] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Game without logi , this could be interesting, but CCP will never go into this direction. No it wouldn't. Nerfing logi would serve almost no purpose. Saying "but my fleet of 10 have no chance against a fleet of 100" is a statement of fact irrespective of whether logi are in the game or not. Engaging a fleet of 100 with a fleet of 10 is suicide however you look at it, generally speaking. It's all about picking your fights. If you attack a fleet you have no hope of winning you screwed up, tactically. Nerfing logi has no affect on tactical screwups.
Engaging a fleet of 100 with 50 however would become viable. At the very least you would take a good chunk of them with you. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12755
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 16:01:00 -
[87] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Gavin Dax wrote:To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before. Already in the game and called Damps.
Not viable for small alliances. You need to use them as a full secondary fleet to make them work. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12755
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 16:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Gavin Dax wrote:To partially fix this, logi (and IMO also EWAR ships) should not have range safety. They should be forced to stay fairly close to the rest of the fleet. In addition, logistics ships should not be able to receive remote reps (some sort of triage equivalent?). That way, at the very least a smaller fleet engaging a large one could still inflict damage by targeting logistics ships. Perhaps they can still rep at long range, but at a severe penalty to what they rep now. Some sort of steep falloff as has been suggested before. Already in the game and called Damps. Not viable for small alliances. You need to use them as a full secondary fleet to make them work. No you don't. Where did you come up with that idea?
It lacks the firepower and EHP to be used as a primary fleet doctrine. They get used as support for a primary fleet such as baltecs or railgu. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12755
|
Posted - 2014.08.20 17:27:00 -
[89] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Ccp dropped the Ball ever since they nerfed smaller gangs the so called nano they were fun and the smaller alliances and corps could and did harrass the bigger alliances.
I think That manny changes whould Shake things a bit but the aversion that all null coaglitions have now would still be present and they would continue to rule vasts amounts of Space
Not if we change sov to residency based and replace the primary ratting activity from anoms to missions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12770
|
Posted - 2014.08.21 12:41:00 -
[90] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
The problem with missions is that the missioners will be almost 100% safe because takes longer to probe them there and they will be long docked when hunters arrive.
Using local as an intel tool goes out the window when you have 50+ in the system. More densely populated sov space would make catching rattler easier than now Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12772
|
Posted - 2014.08.22 11:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:I see that 50 % missions you have in the same system , 30% in the constellation , 20% anywhere in alliance sov.
Nah, just have them in system and next door. The higher agent ones (the ones you get every 10 missions) can be the ones that send you backpacking across the constellation.
The great thing about missions as they currently are is that they let you have much more compact populations which in turn means you have a much better local market and it is a lot easier to for a defense fleet to take on roams all while making local a much more unreliable intel tool. Best thing is that CCP don't need to spend huge amounts of time on it, it is a fairly quick and easy thing to do that will make a huge difference. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12779
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 00:37:00 -
[92] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote: Both sides have impossible to break defensive fleets. We could wage a forever war and get nowhere, hence why we dont bother.
What about if jumps were nerfed in such a manner that they couldn't bring their "impossible to break defensive fleet" to bear? Or you bringing your own fleet to bear? Remove the bridging and jumping from the game and have everyone stuck doing gate jumps from system to system. The only reason the fleets are so unbreakable is that the fleet can get there quickly (and so can yours) and reinforcements are but a couple jumps away. Slow that down a bit and you won't have the ability to project power over the whole area. But hey "everyone would burn out trying to move the fleets around" honestly I don't see it as anywhere near the problem people make it out to be. We would be in the exact same situation as now only it would take 4 hours rather than 2. Yeah, but with a 4 hour defensive response time means that my team could jump in, get SBUs up, reinforce the Ihub, and either cloak up, log out, or run away before you could respond. Given this happens often enough in different areas you have to either A, local defense fleets to stave off these assaults. B, bring big blap fleets every time to deal with the attack you are expecting to get the second level of reinforcement on the station and Ihub. C, bring a big fleet to save the system when it comes out of its last reinforcement. D, concede that some systems on the fringe of your sov aren't worth the effort of defending and let the little guy hold territory for a while. Hell, you're the blue doughnut, you can come by and wipe them out any time you want right right? Little guy, it doesn't matter that much. They could go out and attack some systems, conquer them for some amount of time. Maybe take an overall money loss on the whole affair, maybe they could hold their couple systems for long enough to make a profit. Either way, there'd be more chances for content generation.
It takes a week to take a station system, we only need to show up once in that week to defend it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12779
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 08:53:00 -
[93] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote: It takes a week to take a station system, we only need to show up once in that week to defend it.
Yeah, you only have to show up once for me... but what about for the 30 other groups of scrubs that will be gunning for your systems now that they know a 400man MOM fleet won't be dropping on them within a moments notice? Remember, my whole argument is about slowing capital mobility down and giving them gate travel. Takes 3 hours IIRC to put up SBUs. And then assuming a handful of dreads, we could actuality reinforce some stuff before you're blob gets here to stop us. You at any time have the forces to stop us, but at the same time if attacks are happening in 10 different systems, you gotta start splitting up your fleet, and you better check yourself on that because now you're numerical advantage is getting whittled down. You might ignore the initial assault, planning to defend during the armor phase or the structure phase. But even then can you get the pilots online willing to run around after 10-20man groups harassing ur stuff? Content? I wonder how long your pilots will keep from getting burned out running around trying to catch all the little groups of harassers that can't be just smacked down by your supercaps. Hell, given you're slower response time, I could just take a handful of guys, fly right into your space and start running around reinforcing moongoo POSes and cutting into your income. You gonna just let us go around and kill of x number of days worth of goo production? Is that scrubby system out on the fringe with the crappy moons really worth the effort compared to stopping the harassing group? All this crap COULD be done now you might argue. But be honest, it really cant. You can simply bring your fleet to bear against anyone too quickly, so noone bothers trying. And you've got too many treaty's with the rest of the doughnut for them to do anything. Then theres also always Cyno jammers, which we can't do much about. 1 Dread = ~5-15BSes worth of DPS, but hey we can't use them 90% the time.
You have to remember you dont just slow us down you also slow down any attacker just as much. Under the current mechanics simply nerfing power projections would mean everything just takes longer to do. We would still show up for the timers because we would just set off a bit sooner. You could remove jump bridges, remove titan bridges and force a 24 hour cooldown on capital jump drives and we would still be able to dump baltec fleets on your head that no small alliance can hurt.
If anything you make it even harder to remove us from our sprawling empires and all of the real problems with null go untouched. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12779
|
Posted - 2014.08.23 08:58:00 -
[94] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:Back to the Logi argument, what woud putting an optimal/falloff do to the Logi system? Especially if its a steep fallof (like 5/45 at max Logi level). This could fit well with the upcoming "meta-cide" so that some modules could be skewed to favor total range at the cost of rep-power and the other way, rep-power at the cost of range, and to that end have one module with high optimal/low falloff and one with low optimal/high falloff.
More fitting choices means more fleet options and more tactical decisions.
Also, I'm still totally in favor of residence based sov, however, agent missions is not the way to go. It needs to be a structure based mechanism that allows increased PvE opportunities with increased structure placement. This allows attackers targets of opportunity that have real worth and will affect a system in real time.
Problem with this idea is that it hurts small scale use of logi.
The reason why diminishing returns is better is because it would mean small scale use of logi for roams, small fleets and small capital use would stay as it is. We only want to nerf their use in the large fleets which is where the problem is.
The reason for missions is a simple one. It is by far the easiest change for ccp to make that would have the greatest impact. They are already in game, they inject less isk into the system than anoms do and they allow for any number of people in the system. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12781
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 04:12:00 -
[95] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dr Cedric wrote:Back to the Logi argument, what woud putting an optimal/falloff do to the Logi system? Especially if its a steep fallof (like 5/45 at max Logi level). This could fit well with the upcoming "meta-cide" so that some modules could be skewed to favor total range at the cost of rep-power and the other way, rep-power at the cost of range, and to that end have one module with high optimal/low falloff and one with low optimal/high falloff.
More fitting choices means more fleet options and more tactical decisions.
Also, I'm still totally in favor of residence based sov, however, agent missions is not the way to go. It needs to be a structure based mechanism that allows increased PvE opportunities with increased structure placement. This allows attackers targets of opportunity that have real worth and will affect a system in real time. Problem with this idea is that it hurts small scale use of logi. The reason why diminishing returns is better is because it would mean small scale use of logi for roams, small fleets and small capital use would stay as it is. We only want to nerf their use in the large fleets which is where the problem is. The reason for missions is a simple one. It is by far the easiest change for ccp to make that would have the greatest impact. They are already in game, they inject less isk into the system than anoms do and they allow for any number of people in the system. Any number of people without any investment in the system to allow it? I don't want to make sitting in a single system w/ 400 people EASY to accomplish. I don't necessarily mind if it happens, but a group needs to work for their space, both taking the space and making opportunities for ISK generation
Which is why we are asking for the agent to be a station upgrade that have 4 levels. It would work in more or less the same way anoms do. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12781
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 04:23:00 -
[96] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:If you nerf logi, the game just reverts back to the previous Alpha over sustained DPS crap. I doubt that this is any better. It is a lot better than having smaller fleets completely unable to even cause any damage to a larger one. Again, (AGAIN) a nerf to damage mitigation will only mean a larger entity will steamroll over the smaller even more quickly than now. baltec1 wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Ccp dropped the Ball ever since they nerfed smaller gangs the so called nano they were fun and the smaller alliances and corps could and did harrass the bigger alliances.
I think That manny changes whould Shake things a bit but the aversion that all null coaglitions have now would still be present and they would continue to rule vasts amounts of Space Not if we change sov to residency based and replace the primary ratting activity from anoms to missions. All that's going to do is lead to more renters. You aren't changing anything. In fact most your suggestions would probably worse then situation, not improve it. Sov based residency, which is nice in theory. But without addressing the ability to hotdrop everywhere and anywhere all day long the larger entities will always be able to bully all of null, The real issue isn't how many systems are stamped with your name on the sov map. That doesn't really matter all that much. It's the degree of direct influence via spaceship violence that really matters. This is why your "travel shouldn't be nerfed because it won't change anything" is critically flawwed. Because as it is both nothing will ever be out of reach of a bloc's influence and they will never be vulnerable to counter attack. (they never actually have to "commit" to a campaign). You want to talk about making it so smaller groups have a chance? Next time a bloc group goes to put someone in line or defend an interest on one side of the galaxy, give the ability of a smaller group (in a nose-to-nose fight) to counter attack your interests without you being able to respond immediately. THAT is how you give small guys a chance. By not letting big guys be everywhere at once. You keep saying that "well it will slow the attackers too" but you completely (willfully?) ignore that fact that the comparison to be made here isn't one large group vs one small group, but in reality (and how null should be) it's one large group vs many small groups. And until you can address why this is so allegedly fundamentally flawed, I have trouble taking your ideas into consideration as unbiased. And don't give us that same tired "well this alliance will cover this, and that one that" because it doesn't actually mean anything. The point isn't who can commit to where, the point is being able to hit those people at home WHEN they commit.
Again, nerf power projection and you get both attackers AND defenders. I will continue to give you our sigs will cover this and that because that is exactly what we will do. Under the current mechanics we can defend our space without jumpbridges, hell, they nefed them a few years ago and it made no difference.
We used to take fleets from one side of EVE to the other before we had bridges and titans to get in on fights. You will never stop large alliances from being able to reach anywhere in EVE. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12781
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 06:16:00 -
[97] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Again, nerf power projection and you get both attackers AND defenders. I will continue to give you our sigs will cover this and that because that is exactly what we will do. Under the current mechanics we can defend our space without jumpbridges, hell, they nefed them a few years ago and it made no difference.
I'm sure i can manage operating at exactly the same speed i already am, compared to you who are suddenly vastly slower. Quote: We used to take fleets from one side of EVE to the other before we had bridges and titans to get in on fights. You will never stop large alliances from being able to reach anywhere in EVE.
Yeah we cant stop you, but if you're the same speed as us, its a bit more balanced. Quote:As for your logi comment, we already alpha smaller fleets into oblivion and take no damage in return. You are literally arguing for small alliances to stand zero chance of even hurting us let alone having any chance to win. The CFC is untouchable and you are arguing to keep it that way. Cant alpha down fleets with your blob when you cant catch them as easily. Logi is a second rate problem to the strategic mobility. Here. Try this. It might help you understand our point of view. Go on steam(or any other place that has it) and dl the demo to "Sword of the Stars" Its a slightly aged 4x game that will run on a toaster that even though it was released in... 2006 i think, still has a small yet active community (though many of us play the sequel, but theres no free demo for #2) Play around with it a few matchs, read the forums get a general feel for the game. Then load up an 350 star 8 player match where all the players and ais are playing hiver. Try that for a bit, do a hamachi lan match have a couple other doughnut alliance members get in on the game. Now about turn 180 of that match... thats the status of eve sov warfare. Attacks are almost worthless to make because the enemy can get all of their forces anywhere they need to defend before you can ever manage. (Yes blobbing up so that a tactical battle runs down the counter does work, but since your playing with other people, try doing a match where at any given time you never exceed 500 ships. (To emulate the limited number of players at your disposals in eve) Now do it again later. But pick a different race, have all the players running humans, play it now and see how the fighting unfolds. (Dont go past the fusion era though, cause late game humans are the fastest race in the game. They had an interesting balance that game did) This second game, without the instant response times, would be much more like eve without jump drives.
Now listen to someone who has been playing the sov game in EVE for near 8 years. We can cover our space even without access to jump bridges and titans. We get at least two days to defend any target and our fleets are effectivly imminue to smaller alliances. Nerfing power projection will do nothing to our ability to defend our space, it will not help you to take any systems off us.
Power projection nerf will do nothing to fix the problems with null. It wont solve the need for empire spawl, it wont solve the issue of holding sov in unused space, it wont help small alliances from getting wiped out and it wont solve the issue of needing a massive capital fleet to be viable. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12781
|
Posted - 2014.08.24 07:24:00 -
[98] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:Congrats youve been here longer than i have.
I understand you can cover your sprawling empires even without jumping. But that means you are spread out. Together we stand divided we fall. Well you always stand together,because theres no reason for you to be divided, you can be anywhere when you need to be.
Wouldnt really hurt the little guy not having power projection, they likely wouldnt expand past a 4 jumps in any direction anyways.
And you have 2 days... to defend any target... you mean any 1 target. You need more time to defend more targets do you not? Especially if you need to defend them say, all on the same day? Yeah i know youve got your wrecking ball and all that jazz. Glancing around you mustered around 4000 ships from all the member groups earlier this year for that fight. Quite a feat.
Now lets say theres an uprising of ~ 500 players, bolstered by the news that cfc wont be listening to miley cirus this afternoon, and theyre stuck slowboating it just like you. they prepare forces, and jump off from lowsec and attack 50 different systems... 10 players per system doesnt sound like much, but really how long does it take 5 dreads to reinforce an ihub. So now assuming you stomped out 3/4ths of thes little attempts and now your looking at 10 systems coming out of reinforcement that you have to deal with, amongst other attacks that may spring up. That 4000 ships starting to get split up starts looking more like a bunch of 100 and 200 ship fleets to me, which arent 100% untouchable even with logi. We dont mind the loss of a few ships in the name of taking a few bites out the krispy creme. And as you start having to keep pilots on more and more often to stamp out these smaller insurrections (rather than just all hands on deck once or twice a year) your guys will start to get antsy, start burning out.
Just fly into some systems and get them reinforced, they spend an hour or 2 moving ships around for the defense in a couple days. A defense against an attack that may never come. I know we all hate chasing shadows man.
But hey try out the sots game, you might get a better feel for what im saying rather then getting all red in the face because you realize that someone elses argument could possibly have some validity. Heck if you practice a bit yourself, a couple guys and i are gonna have a match next weekend, we could send you the server info and show you first hand what i mean about the status of power projected sov.
Why would I play another game that has nothing in common with EVE?
How exactly are they going to reinforce 50 systems with just 500 subcaps?
See this is where your inexperience shows. We already have our forces split up into sigs that deal with problem areas and are forever dealing with SBUs everywhere. Hell under your plan we could follow that 500 man fleet around with seige fleet and be utterly safe from any counter hotdrops. We could even dump our caps on people more often safe in the knolage that PL/N3 cant catch them.
Power projection nerfs are only ever put forwards by people who have no understanding of sov or knolage of how we run our fleets. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12782
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 10:03:00 -
[99] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote: We already have our forces split up into sigs that deal with problem areas and are forever dealing with SBUs everywhere. Hell under your plan we could follow that 500 man fleet around with seige fleet and be utterly safe from any counter hotdrops. We could even dump our caps on people more often safe in the knolage that PL/N3 cant catch them.
Power projection nerfs are only ever put forwards by people who have no understanding of sov or knolage of how we run our fleets. And at any moment you can move further reinforcments into place, call for help, bolt for the nearest jump bridge to help someone else and never actually commit to anything. It's the simplest concept ever, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Sinclair is of course right: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"Of course it could just be the natural consequence of someone who has admittedly been living "in the box" for 8 years and literally has NO concept of how this game can operate without the mechanics you rely on. If your 8 year experience is anything to be considered. Then perhaps you should take it from someone that's been playing going on 11 years. I lived in 0.0 for years before there even was a goonswarm, your entire thought process appears to be institutionalized around the blocs. It's really no wonder you have no clue how to fix 0.0 Power projection is the problem. That was the pandoras box moment when we lost regionalization of space and one group became able to sweep across all of the map. 8 years you been around, and 8 years of what? The slow amalgamation of blues until it congealed into one ball of huge monied (moon) interests people always able to hop to the defense of the others. It has nothing to do with remote repping abilities. You can't see the forest for the trees here.
I also pre date jump bridges and titans, I know how we used to run these things. I also know how we run things today and how we would respond to losing jump bridging capabilities. Nerfing power projection will do nothing to our ability to defend our vast empires. As I keep on saying our current defensive model would still be viable, we would continue to have our sigs and alliances positioned to be within easy reach of any threat and we have several sigs that specialise in deploying to hotspots.
Equally the invincibility of our fleets vs smaller ones has everything to do with RR as its that very thing that makes us invincible. Even if our enemy outnumbers us they stand down if they lack logi because it would be a waste of time and isk to just throw a fleet away and get no kills in return.
Do you want to stop us from having massive sprawling empires? Then you must get rid of the need to have them in the first place. The only way to nerf power projection enough to stop us from owning the vast empires we currently do is the remove jump drives and bridges entirely, remove jump clones and put a limit on how many gates we can use in a 24 hour period. Sounds fun right? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12782
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 16:03:00 -
[100] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote: I also pre date jump bridges and titans, I know how we used to run these things. I also know how we run things today and how we would respond to losing jump bridging capabilities. Nerfing power projection will do nothing to our ability to defend our vast empires.
Your just screaming into the wind. Response times would be slowed, this is not a matter of opinion or belief. It's the very specific mechanic we are discussing. You just don't want to acknowledge it. baltec1 wrote: As I keep on saying our current defensive model would still be viable, we would continue to have our sigs and alliances positioned to be within easy reach of any threat and we have several sigs that specialise in deploying to hotspots.
I'm not even sure you understand why you have friends or why blobs exist. Even within alliances themselves people have reasons they are members. I think you take membership to a group for granted (again, not surprising). The only reason a group is formed (and the only way it can survive) is mutual benefit. Common defense, value/money making, that type of thing. Right? When you slow response times and change mechanics so that one offense makes you vulnerable, or to say, when leaving your home past a certain point makes you vulnerable to counter attack without immediate response you will find your friends and other alliances that are so quick to spread out in this undefeatable coalition might not be so quick to help you all the time. Someone will eventually capitalize on it and stab the other in the back for profit. It's called PVP. And it's what needs brought back to the organizations. People within an organization need both opportunity and incentive to stab their friends in the back. Changes to RR won't do that, and that mechanic didn't cause it to begin with. You've gone out and proven my point for me, you just don't want to consider it. You're right we need to remove the need to have massive sprawling empires. That need isn't born out of the ability to amass a blob of motherships that can all RR themselves. It's born out of alliances being able to instantly respond to any threat to themselves, or any threat to the others. baltec1 wrote: The only way to nerf power projection enough to stop us from owning the vast empires we currently do is the remove jump drives and bridges entirely, remove jump clones and put a limit on how many gates we can use in a 24 hour period. Sounds fun right? You might find this surprising to hear, but many of us play eve today without depending on constant crutch of jump drives, bridges and needing to jump clone around the universe. Some of us not only remember smaller more regionalized space and small gang warfare, we actually still live it. It's called low sec and it's 1000%x the game 0.0 is at the moment. yes, it sounds like fun. it sounds like a blast. It sounds exactly like a game I played once, one you allege you were also around to enjoy. One null has ever so slowly evolved away from into the complete BORE it is today. We could all just stay blue forever. Sounds fun, right?
You seem to be under the assumption that if you nerf power projection that we cannot protect our assets. Under the current mechanics we get two days to respond to a reinforcement timer and it is timed to come out at our strongest time. We can have our fleets mobilised and placed anywhere we need them in that time. Our responce time will be exactly the same as now. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12785
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 16:55:00 -
[101] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
I not under that assumption at all??
Lets be clear, while we can use your alliance as a situational example, this has nothing to do WITH YOU. Get over yourself, this is about the entire game and population.
We own half of null, this has everything to do with us because the goal is to stop us from being able to own half of null. Any changes made needs to literally be goon proof.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote: Its funny your defensive argument is now 'all else equal' citing 2 day timers when we are many pages past accepting any change will need to be mulitfaceted.
Nobody is saying that towers need to lose their reinforcement timers, they were given them for a very good reason.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote: Keep clinging to that flat out lie "our response time wont change", its going places. When the mechanics impacting that response is the entire point.
It wont because towers aren't going to be losing the timers. Power projection nerfs achieve nothing other than making life in EVE yet more tedious. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12785
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 17:51:00 -
[102] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote: You seem to be under the assumption that if you nerf power projection that we cannot protect our assets. Under the current mechanics we get two days to respond to a reinforcement timer and it is timed to come out at our strongest time. We can have our fleets mobilised and placed anywhere we need them in that time. Our responce time will be exactly the same as now.
yes, to any 1 timer. You have a lot of space, and you keep trying to pick apart everyone's arguments saying that you're better and can deal with anything. Say Hero down there with there, what 10000 guys? Get them some better FCs. Started running around with 10-20 AHAC gangs of 500 members each (Zealot can do 600dps with pulses and conflagration then immediately switch to scorch to deal with threats no ammo need either, ishtar can do 700 with just its drones) attacking different systems all across your space. You might be able to chase them down and beat each 1 of these groups, but could you really chase all of them down at once? And say each brought 10-20 dreads along with that gang? Takes a little more than 50mil damage (57 actually) to reinforce the Ihub IIRC. 10 moroses doing 7.5k damage (even though they can actually do over 10k with the right fit, but lets say 7.5, cause they might not have all moroses and averaging the possible damage) can literally hit the thing down in 2 siege cycles. That with another 400 subcaps also applying DPS? Heck 50 zealots or ishtars could get the thing down in about a half hour. It just doesn't happen too often now, because everyone has to wait 3 hours to actually attack (SBUs), and you're easily able to throw your fleet around to take down SBUs across all your space without difficulty (power projection, on the defense). Also, earlier you mentioned that you'd be able to drop your fleet on anyone now without worry of PL/N3 counterdropping. And that that would make you more powerful... Well that may be. But PL/N3 also doesn't have to worry about your fleets dropping on them, so they have opportunities to strike on top of my own forces of 200 nerds who I could maybe call to arms for a couple weeks, the 10000 brave newbies, PL/N3 forces, other lowrat/carebear forces that have never bothered trying sov because they dont want to just be renters. Seriously, theres thousands of players who aren't directly under your thumb man. They all could be attacking at you, (and right now, probably are to some extents), but would you just be sitting there on defense too? Youd probably have your own ships roaming around their territory dropping SBUs looking for a fight. They just don't bother trying now because they know they cant win cause they'll get dropped on in minutes. Slow the game down, get rid of jump drives and titan bridges. Then they at least can get those first reinforcement stages down and you have to actually be on the ball and defend your systems periodically on the armor and structure phases. You might slip up, trying to cover all that territory at once. It might upset you off to think of it that way. But at least everyone would be moving around, with chances to actually fight. Rather than jumping a system or 2 in enemy territory, dropping some SBUs, and running away before you respond, hoping that you might not destroy the SBUs before they start working. Hell IRL I know 7 players of CFC member alliances and another 3 from PL/N3 alliances who are tired enough of the stagnation that they started alts to run with BNI since theres apparently some fun happening down there.
So according to your logic nerfing power projection will make it easier for alliances to project their power outside of their space and harder for defenders to project their power inside their own space. That is pants on head logic right there. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12786
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 18:08:00 -
[103] - Quote
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:baltec1 wrote: We own half of null, this has everything to do with us because the goal is to stop us from being able to own half of null. Any changes made needs to literally be goon proof. Who says it has to be goon proof? You, not me. Unlike you I'm not going to stand here and suggest something as rediculous as RR changes will make it so smaller groups can WIN. Eve doesn't and never will work like that. Goons will control precicely what they will based on their abilities, organization and playerbase. As they should. You don't have anything to do with a balance discussion because there is no such thing as making the game "proof" of a group. ^^ This speaks entirely as to why you are incapable of seeing how to improve null. You can't think outside the box you live in. And my guess is, this is the failing in your suggestion for shaking up null. (RR nerf is removing any ability to stalemate against a larger force.) You have no interest in fixing null mechanics, you just want it so one side can win. I'm starting to think you can't even conceptualize the game in terms other than one side vs another. baltec1 wrote: Nobody is saying that towers need to lose their reinforcement timers, they were given them for a very good reason. And what good reason was that? And who ever said it was good? Time might be ruling against that one. What if structures had nothing to do with attacking, defending and controlling space? Hell, open the stations and just make them large tax-free zones with infinite science and industry slots. Move moon mins to belts. Get rid of bubbles, who cares, ANYTHING to shake it up. Try thinking beyond "hurr tower bash" "hurr poco bash" baltec1 wrote: It wont because towers aren't going to be losing the timers. Power projection nerfs achieve nothing other than making life in EVE yet more tedious. Tedious for who? There is literally nothing more tedious than the current state of null. My idea is to promote regionalization of space. (it existed before and can again) Now, I'm sure your alliance would be capable of spreading it's butter evenly across the bread to defend it all. Good for them, not part of the discussion. But it should be pain in the ass to move thousands from one side of your empire to the other in a blink if you want to commit your forces. No large group can ever be vulnerable ever if there is no distance or actual travel to be a barrier between one side of space and the other. "You want to make eve less fun" lol. Listen to yourself. Do you know how many times I've heard this unsubtatiated opinion? Even more fun, take a guess at who I hear it from. We've spent years with CCP developing null by the suggestions of those that wish to control it, not fix it.The only people enjoying the space now is people staring at maps and counting their isk, it's as dead as a gameplay can get. I could really give a rats ass about the absolute miniscule minority that's etched out the stalemate that is null today thinking the game might not be as fun if they can't hop around all of null on a whim with dozens of supercaps and thousands of ships. And I think the massive majority of the server population would probably agree. Once we have a regionalization and distance actually means something, there are countless ways to improve that space to make it sustainable for large groups. I'm interested in watching this game, watching null, thrive. The capacity for population in null could be far beyond what it is today, but it will never be with our current mechanics. "activity based sov" for what? No one will be permitted to stay that doesn't pay rent to a bloc anyways, bam, dead in the water. You'll be fishing for bot corps and suckers like you do now. You have to think beyond the status quo if you expect to improve beyond it. And you just don't seem to be capable of that. Even worse, you may not even want to. You wouldn't be the first person to choose to rule in hell vs serving in heaven. or... To rule over a stagnant boring eve is probably appealing vs learning to compete again in a very different and vibrant one.
1. If towers had no timers we would burn everything in null and lowsec in a matter of weeks. Both us and PL/N3 have the firepower to torch every tower in an entire region in two days. Its happened before.
2. In 2008 venal residents not only held off the old NC but wiped out their entire supercap fleet while outnumbered. Small fleets used to win vs bigger ones all the time back then because logi were nowhere near as effective as now. Today those same fleets cant even score any kills. RR is responcible for this, if its not fixed then small alliances wont be viable in null unless they join a largepowerblock.
3. Yes, any system will have to be goon proof otherwise we will abuse it. CCP have been forced to make several changes to the game due to our actions from the FW isk fountain to barge buffs to nerfs to sentry drone use.
4. Nothing would make us happier than having all of our space taken off us, I look forwards to that day. A stagnant null is not in our interests hence why we are pushing for the plan we have. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12787
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 20:04:00 -
[104] - Quote
See all your posts just come across as a bitter armchair general highsec alt who has no idea what they are talking about.
How many times have I had to point out to you that smaller fleets cant even hurt a larger one? You think this is fine? That smaller powers or fleet without the critical mass of logi one have the option of standing down.
I have lost count of the amount of times I have told you what would happen if you just nerf power projection. Fine, ignore the facts, lets take this down another path. If you nerf power projection how are alliances to to survive out on the edges of null? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12789
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 21:23:00 -
[105] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote:
I have lost count of the amount of times I have told you what would happen if you just nerf power projection. Fine, ignore the facts, lets take this down another path. If you nerf power projection how are alliances going to survive out on the edges of null?
Local production would be a start. Not like its hard to move stuff with blockade runners either. Done it 1000 times to using regular gates, and wormhole chains that happened to be open that day. Often though territory that I wasn't allied with, and before the balance pass to BRs.
Even with the new industry changes you cannot live totally independent from high sec (which is how it should be). You cannot keep an alliance supplied just with blockade runners, you need freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12792
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 23:55:00 -
[106] - Quote
jiujitsutou wrote:
2. This sounds like pure claims since neither rrs nor the ships that usualy fit them have been changed in any meaningfull way if we ignore t1 logis and frigs wich went from garbage to okish. Could you elaborate how rrs have become more effective and in what way you would want to change , so that a big gangs donot profit as much from them as small gangs , how will you address RR BS / RR T3 and RR Carrier (with atleast the last having a major role in evening the odds for certain alliances while beeing outnumbered).
Numbers.
Back then you couldn't deploy 25-35 logi in a fleet because you didn't have the manpower to spare to do it or the people with the skills. Same as how the massive capital balls are only now a thing. You also didn't have rigs back then and then when we did it was overly expensive as there was only the large rigs for everything. When we got the med rigs things changed as the logi boats could now become cap stable cheaply and were not reliant upon cap chains.
The fix is relatively simple, you put a stacking penalty in place so that after 4-5 logi ships you see less and less repping just like how damage mods work. This way you nerf the problem but don't impact small scale use of the ships and it would apply to everything from frigates to RR battleships to supercaps. People who say that this would result in smaller fleets being killed even faster than now are talking rubbish. It would be no easier to kill them than now, we simply alpha then off grid. The difference this change would make is that they can kill us in return which means it is now possible to use tactics to win a fight rather than just numbers and raw power. It would return us to how it was back in 2010. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12793
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 00:21:00 -
[107] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:Quoting sucks on my phone.
So baltec. If theres a 5ship limit stacking penalty, or is it a 5 rep penalty ( so only 2 carriers can rep you at once before taking penalties). Also how does it mesh with say getting reps from a triaged carrier, relative to a non triage carrier? Or reps from a logifrig, 20 shield repair bots, and a logistic cruiser? Is there just a set limit, cant rep more than x per second? Or like current EWAR equipments that have a stacking penalty, so depending on the... quality of the reps, the highest quality one goes through, while lower quality ones are penalized
Also, how does it affect cap chaining?
Also how does this affect carriers, that though theyre supposed to be logi ships, can put out BS level dps, while repping and imbalanced amount compared to the nonsiege damage dealing ability of a dread?
5 ships. Reps from a carrier would take priority over something lesser like a drone or a guardian so you wouldn't lose out that way. Cap chaining would be unaffected. I hold no illusion that it would be a pain for CCP programmers but its the most fair way of doing it so far.
Carriers and supers are a big reason why RR nerfs need to happen as they are effectively invincible to subcaps once you hit a critical mass. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12793
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 00:34:00 -
[108] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:So.. since cap transfers would probably be affected by this change... Would neuts and nosses be stacking penalized as well?
None of those would be impacted. Cap transfers would not be touched, just the reps. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12793
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 01:23:00 -
[109] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Linkxsc162534 wrote:So.. since cap transfers would probably be affected by this change... Would neuts and nosses be stacking penalized as well? None of those would be impacted. Cap transfers would not be touched, just the reps. Iight. So heres a thought. Most carriers generally run 2-3 reppers, an energy transfer, triage mod, and often a bomb of some sort or a cloak. How bout (at least for caps) each carrier can only carry 1 repper (of each type, since everyone runs armorfleets, they can if they wish do 1 armor 1 shield and 1 hull, or they can trade the unbonused shield and hull reppers for 2 extra highslot mods), Carriers and logiships get rebalanced around their single repper by buffing their bonuses. Spidertank bses might take a hit, but perhaps down the line other balance changes could even it out. Or the repper itself could be buffed, and then nonbonused logi operations (spidertanked bses and bcs come to mind) would benefit. (Although when doing some fact checking just now on eft... arent local reps and remote a little out of sync with eachother? And wht is with the micro remote shield booster...) This way ccp could have a much easier time balancing it perhaps. Because then itd literally be 5 carriers worth of repping? Also in the case of subcap logis, they might start carrying smartbombs of their own, or perhaps packing those weapon hardpoints and contributing to the antifrig element or something.
There was another idea for just stopping RR from working in combat and having logi given another role such as anti support or give them remote sensor booster bonuses and the like. A bit of an extreme solution and would result in logi stopping off grid somewhere and damaged ships warping to them for reps before warping back into the fight. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12801
|
Posted - 2014.08.26 10:35:00 -
[110] - Quote
jiujitsutou wrote:@ Wayne: Adding more systems in the current system is nonsense they would be taken just as fast , the Point was and is Powerprojection must be hit hard with the nerfhammer.
@ baltec1: So Basicly you want to soft cap rrs while damage still works n+1 ? That does sound stupid to me ignoring the absoulute numbers you suggest. You said it yourself the Problems is your numbers aka the blobb , rigs do play a Part however the umber of available reps didnt actualy change in 2008/9 RR BS were a huge thing it basicly meant that you had 150 reps spread over 150 ships but resulted in the same amount of reps you get nowadays from 25ish logis .Lets just assume you would be rght and the amount of reps did go up significantly , so did the damage on most ships . A Cap to rrs will help the larger groups more than the small ones as theyll just go the way of the Shotgun as they can afford taking more losses anyways.
BS RR back then had a bunch of issues from quickly capping out to range problems. They were not nearly as good at RR as logi ships today which is why they haven't been see for something like 5 years. The N+1 in regards to damage isn't something you can nerf directly unless you do something like remove the broadcast system. Big fleets will still be a powerful tool but they will at least now be killable.
Quote:3-4 modules active to a station rep fleet! YES! I have one week to rep this ****!
Naturally structures would have to have no RR cap on them or have specialist mods or even ships for the job and just that job. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12813
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 12:02:00 -
[111] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:Quote:And he is Right, anyoen that has brains enough to analyse the situation can see (or even remember from the past if you prefer) that without logi the fights had way more attrition and smaller gangs were COMMONLY fighting larger gangs and doing a lot of damage. Can someone tell me, what year are we talking?
2010 and under. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12813
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 12:19:00 -
[112] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:Yes! now I remember, those times that you didn't want to get in big fights because of lag, and those damn hamsters dying so fast!
yes the RR was the hint! that was the feature that made us not flying 1.5k vs 1.5k, yes you ppl are right! the RR was the driving force!
ok lets get our **** together, back then when you had more than 500 in system lag was kicking your head till you spit your teeth.
you didn't have the choice to bring those 50 logi's because you needed those DPS! so no logi more DPS ships.
but... go on, tell about history, I like to hear about those glory days of eve and not seeking a solution to the future without those recalls.
This was 2 years before you started playing. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12816
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 12:32:00 -
[113] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:baltec1 wrote:cpt Niki wrote:Yes! now I remember, those times that you didn't want to get in big fights because of lag, and those damn hamsters dying so fast!
yes the RR was the hint! that was the feature that made us not flying 1.5k vs 1.5k, yes you ppl are right! the RR was the driving force!
ok lets get our **** together, back then when you had more than 500 in system lag was kicking your head till you spit your teeth.
you didn't have the choice to bring those 50 logi's because you needed those DPS! so no logi more DPS ships.
but... go on, tell about history, I like to hear about those glory days of eve and not seeking a solution to the future without those recalls.
This was 2 years before you started playing. 2007 > 2010? ehm! man! are you ok? did you get from my drugs?
Welp, forums aren't loading histories for me again.
Still, you show a total lack of knowledge of null history, a smaller fleet would often lose the field but win the isk war. There would be endless arguments over who actually won the battle. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12816
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 13:12:00 -
[114] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote: you didn't told me how many actual players have rights in GSF? you have x2 the numbers of those old days and I believe you don't have the double directors to maintain the corp.
Hundreds. BATs alone have damn near everyone with access to FC tools, run sigs, intel, logistics etc. etc..
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12816
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 13:29:00 -
[115] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:baltec1 wrote:cpt Niki wrote: you didn't told me how many actual players have rights in GSF? you have x2 the numbers of those old days and I believe you don't have the double directors to maintain the corp.
Hundreds. BATs alone have damn near everyone with access to FC tools, run sigs, intel, logistics etc. etc.. No, not that access, I mean hangars, finance, assets rights to do something for the corp.
Near everyone in BATs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12816
|
Posted - 2014.08.27 17:00:00 -
[116] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:baltec1 wrote:cpt Niki wrote:baltec1 wrote:cpt Niki wrote: you didn't told me how many actual players have rights in GSF? you have x2 the numbers of those old days and I believe you don't have the double directors to maintain the corp.
Hundreds. BATs alone have damn near everyone with access to FC tools, run sigs, intel, logistics etc. etc.. No, not that access, I mean hangars, finance, assets rights to do something for the corp. Near everyone in BATs. there you are! do you get it? BAT is 200 pilots not 2k not 11k nor a coalition of "I don't know how many"k pilots http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Goonswarm_Federation/corporations11k pilots, near 300 corporations (many of them one man). Think what would you do if you don't have those full APIs for a year! don't tell me those servers was down etc etc ! they were down max 1 day as long as I remember. Think what would you do to trust all those new recruits? (this is the first step an alliance uses an API key) Corporations, Alliances and Coalitions are putting all their effort to keep a good third party tool IT infrastructure that is based (most of those tools) in the API keys. Think how our game would be without that API keys not working for a year? to shake up the sov null you don't need nerfs boost of a ship or a module you need to shake the fundamentals of the game.
We would adapt. We ran large alliances before API and all of our tools can operate without it. API is good to have but not needed to keep us running. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12829
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 10:34:00 -
[117] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:Christopher Mabata wrote:API's are really just a blanket or a cushion against possible danger Theyre not like the main wire feeding into the system that keeps the corps heart beating. So why there is in yours corp info : Become a Part Of the D.O.D.T. Familiy, Today! Please forward your Application to the corp with a Full API Key Attached and wait for a recruiter to contact you if there are any issues. No Applications will take longer than 48 hours without response. you don't need it to keep your corp heart beating! remove that and don't ask for API keys then my friend I will believe you. Till that day say whatever you want, if you believe that API is nothing start recruiting without API checks start your coms without authentication, start your forum without api auth. it is not only your corp every single corp in eve now asks full api or custom api. kill the third party tools make the universe from static to moving make the ly distances from system to system to change dynamically make something that can change the game not just a type of game-play.
All of our tools would continue to work without API. How many times must we tell you this? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12835
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 11:59:00 -
[118] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:baltec1 wrote:
All of our tools would continue to work without API. How many times must we tell you this?
I say everything that gives ingame info to third party tools from the game the API is the easy way because you just turn off a port or block traffic. So delete your API and let me know how it worked for you. stay without API for a year. think it as a test, if it makes your game life more difficult that is what I'm targeting the IT middle management. every tool I have used or made need something that the game gives it to me freely without logging. My assets? API My repro tool? (some formulas that I also get from the dev blogs) I need locations or items (db dump and I can do anything) when I say make the game difficult I mean no third party tools. Only ingame, nothing to be monitored out of game. Am I clear now? do you want me to spell it? Yes I mean none of your tools that work atm to be able to work. That is my point.
But they will all still work.
Our communications, our forums, our intel systems, out broadcasts for fleets, logistics, POS management. All of it will continue without an API. You cant stop us using out of game tools. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12835
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 13:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
cpt Niki wrote:what part you can't understand? ok let me explain you have your tool that use a db downloaded from CCP because atm CCP gives that db to you! let us go to an era where this think it is ban-able and you can't use this think nor you can download it? so there will be NO third party tools anymore. and making\using one it is resulting a permanent ban! do you understand? no dotlan, no evemon, no eveHQ, no staticmapper, no zkillboards, no item db, no eve-agents, no fuzzwork, no garpa, no EFT no https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/3rd_party_tools nothing null can you imagine that? that is what I mean, all the management that is now possible from some infrastructure not being anymore possible. it is that simple. and yes will change the game and your gameplay. Do you recruit with API key? please if you do don't answer again. If you could do it without it you wouldn't using it.
We manually input the info. You are literally punishing everyone and doing nothing to stop us from using our tools. Well done. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 07:48:00 -
[120] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Limiting space needed for a living is better , as more people could live in current eve universe.
I' am still unhappy about what CCP did to Drone Space , and loot drops + refining in the rest of the space.
I know we have miners , but think if the eve could be not more interesting if typical battleship rat earn to a player : - 200k isk of bounty. - 800k isk in mineral alloys - module drop
WHY? Because this would really promote local industry. Just by ratting you would get a lot of minerals for new ship hulls. Minerals that are quite hard to move , but can easily fuel hulls for local PVP.
It hurts miners. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 08:27:00 -
[121] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:baltec1 wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Limiting space needed for a living is better , as more people could live in current eve universe.
I' am still unhappy about what CCP did to Drone Space , and loot drops + refining in the rest of the space.
I know we have miners , but think if the eve could be not more interesting if typical battleship rat earn to a player : - 200k isk of bounty. - 800k isk in mineral alloys - module drop
WHY? Because this would really promote local industry. Just by ratting you would get a lot of minerals for new ship hulls. Minerals that are quite hard to move , but can easily fuel hulls for local PVP.
It hurts miners. It helps other people, additionally we are getting goods on place. Goods that should be hard to move. Isk is bad thing that you get for killing rats , why because it is constantly loosing value, so this leads to nonsense cycle. I can buy 1 battleship after hour of ratting . Because i rat ( also many more people) there is more isk in the system so isk loose its value. [Week Later] I need to rat 1h and 10 minutes to buy the same battleship. I rat more , like more people. Again isk loose its value. [Week later[ I need to rat 1h and 20min to buy the same battleship . (...) i think this is very bad to this game. Ships should be cheep as hell. They should cost at most half of their current prices - why? I have 200mil. What will bring you and other people more fun. Killing/loosing 1 ship that will cost 200mil , or 3 the same ships that will cost those 200mil? Escalating costs - that's something bad. The same goes to supers - they should be nerfed , but if CCP decide to keep them in game super carries should cost around 5bil, titans 20b. Why? CCP desires large capital battles that will fuel their adversing campaign - and those changes will eventually lead to this , as at cost of 1 mother ship you can loose 4 or 5.
Still hurts miners. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12912
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 08:53:00 -
[122] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: Influence of T1 minerals on T2 hulls is small, the same goes for the Faction/Pirate ships.
Not quite true. The rattle for example would become too cheap. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12914
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 10:39:00 -
[123] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
in compensation the changes to drone space massively reduced the supplies while increasing the generation of isk, causing a lot of the current inflation in eve ( yes lots of inflation, compare current prices to 2008 for simple example).
CCP must do more well tought solutions for economical issues, and they cannto be huge hammers like almost every of their actions. They need to act with more finesse.
Its one of the reasons why we want outposts to get missions and have them as the primary income for line members in null. They inject far less isk. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12967
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 14:52:00 -
[124] - Quote
We can break it down into sections which, oddly enough, fits in well with CCPs new development plan.
We start off with addressing the need for empire sprawl. Right now there is a cap on how many players can actively rat in a single system, this currently stands at ten per system. This means groups like ours require vast areas of space to support our members.
"But most of your space is empty!" I hear you cry.
Yes this is true but that is down to another problem which is truesec. You see, the primary form of pve in null sec for your average pilot is anoms and they are tied to truesec. Most systems in null offer worse isk generation than blitzing level 3 missions in highsec with a mach. The best systems in null are on par to slightly worse than can be earned in high sec level 4 mission blitzing.
So we have a double whammy of poor isk income from most of null and the low player cap of 10 per system. This needs to change if we are to shrink the current two blocks from half of EVE each to a single region each and it must happen before any changes to sov.
Simply adding more anoms won't work, not only would a player cap still exist but you would also flood too much isk into the system. Inflation is also why you cannot just add more isk reward to anoms. Anoms must be replaced as the primary pve content and isk generator of nullsec. By far the easiest way to fix this issue is to add mission agents to player outposts. They allow for an unlimited population and null missions provide greater reward than highsec but importantly they will inject far less isk into the system than anoms and will be far easier to implement for CCP than a whole new system.
We then have to deal with capitals. Right now you either have a capital force that can match the two big powers or you are an irrelevant sideshow. Capital issues are all over the place and need several big changes. Firstly, carriers are going to have to lose access to sentries and move to a fighter based platform. Secondly, supers are going to have to lose their E-war immunity however they also need something big in return. Supers and titans must be allowed to dock in outposts. We have to end the bleeding of high SP subs because they are trapped in a space coffin that doesn't see much use. Lastly we must deal with their invulnerability to subcaps, this is covered in the next and most controversial fix.
N+1:
People rightly hate the blob, but why do they hate fighting outnumbered?
Well, its because they cannot hurt it. Right now fleet meat revolves around one simple fact, you must be able to alpha past the logistics of the enemy fleet. If you cannot do this then engaging is pointless. Logistics are going to have to be nerfed if smaller alliances are to stand any chance in null. Equally, it is logistics that makes capital fleets impossible to kill with a subcap fleet. It is going to be painful, it will mean much bloodier fights and chances are I will be among the first to fall in any fleet engagement but if we want to fix null it must happen.
"But you will just farm smaller fleets!" I hear you cry.
This is already happening. We are effectivly untouchable to smaller fleets as they cannot harm us. With a logi nerf in place new tactics such as cheap in your face DPS fleets can dive into the heart of a baltec fleet and inflict a large amount of damage. Sure, we might hold the grid in the end but we could very easily lose the isk war and that is exactly the sort of thing smaller alliances need to boost moral. "Yea we lost that tower but we killed three times more isk worth of stuff".
Sov:
Another need for big balls of ships is the way sov fights are handled. At the moment you fight a handful of timed fights over huge amounts of EHP. This system needs to go. Not only does it mean you need lots of ships to grind down the structures but it also means you need equally or bigger fleets to defend. Remove the ehp and you remove the need for the massive fleets.
The current sov system also lets us dominate huge areas of empty space so long as we can pay the bills. So to end this sov needs to move to residency based. At a stroke you would make at least 80% of the current sov claims drop as all of the unoccupied systems drop. This is by far the most complicated part of the null overhaul and should rightly come last. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12971
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 08:37:00 -
[125] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: What i am missing is the instant relocation by jump /titan bridges and jump drives that also have to be changed.
Its not in there because it simply isn't needed. You deal with power projection by removing the need to send fleets half way across the galaxy to defend you assets. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12971
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 11:13:00 -
[126] - Quote
The only way you can stop us from projecting our power anywhere in EVE is to turn off warpgates entirely. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
12971
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 17:02:00 -
[127] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:baltec1 wrote:The only way you can stop us from projecting our power anywhere in EVE is to turn off warpgates entirely. Why entirely? Goons have sovs in Deklein and Period Basis. How much time would it take to travel BSs fleet beetwen these two regions by gates and how much trough cyno (no clone jump; hypotetical, you can just travel in ceptors)? The summary you've made would be great if we reset null and start everything from day 1. You have right nobody can't stop you from power projecting because your fleets are already there, build, waiting and have ability to be everywhere. I don't think there are any hisec corp or alliances to compete with such power.
About 90 minutes to get anywhere we need to via gates from YA0.
The plan I put forth would infact result in around 80% of the current sov dropping and would make holding those towers harder to defend as we wouldn't have the JB network spanning half of EVE.
Moon goo is a bit of irony in itself. Many this holding a good moon tower mean you rake in the isk but in reality they generate about as much as a null ice miner a month (infact, the ice miner could beat it in terms of income). They are not nearly as important as many think and long before titans came around or the balls of capitals of today the null powers were able to hold them and defend them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13019
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 09:20:00 -
[128] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:baltec1 wrote:We can break it down into sections which, oddly enough, fits in well with CCPs new development plan.
We start off with addressing the need for empire sprawl. Right now there is a cap on how many players can actively rat in a single system, this currently stands at ten per system. This means groups like ours require vast areas of space to support our members.
"But most of your space is empty!" I hear you cry.
Yes this is true but that is down to another problem which is truesec. You see, the primary form of pve in null sec for your average pilot is anoms and they are tied to truesec. Most systems in null offer worse isk generation than blitzing level 3 missions in highsec with a mach. The best systems in null are on par to slightly worse than can be earned in high sec level 4 mission blitzing.
So we have a double whammy of poor isk income from most of null and the low player cap of 10 per system. This needs to change if we are to shrink the current two blocks from half of EVE each to a single region each and it must happen before any changes to sov.
Simply adding more anoms won't work, not only would a player cap still exist but you would also flood too much isk into the system. Inflation is also why you cannot just add more isk reward to anoms. Anoms must be replaced as the primary pve content and isk generator of nullsec. By far the easiest way to fix this issue is to add mission agents to player outposts. They allow for an unlimited population and null missions provide greater reward than highsec but importantly they will inject far less isk into the system than anoms and will be far easier to implement for CCP than a whole new system.
Capital talk - removed -
N+1: - removed -
Sov: stuff - removed - I can get behind removing anomalies and replacing it with some type of agent generated PvE system. I don't think Missions is the right way to do it. Firstly high sec PvE is there so that players can play solo. I don't need to be in communication with ANYONE if I don't want to. I can talk to my agent, do my thing, make my ISK, buy my bling and keep on trucking without saying/typing a word. Low-Sec PvE (fleet warfare) is very much team/cooperation driven (and it is a great facilitator for PvP). I think PvE in Null sec needs to be as much team/cooperation driven as possible. Agents should not be housed in a station, they should be hosted in a separate facility in the sovereign system. The agent requests (I don't want to use the word "mission") needs to be extremely difficult/impossible for solo players, but very doable and rewarding for small fleets. Somewhere in between burner missions and incursions. Difficult AI, that requires teamwork and cooperation. The requests should be varied enough that a single "PvE-fit" on a single "PvE ship" is not enough to complete the variety of requests. The agent should be installed at the corporate level (rather than the allied level), however once initiated, any number of players from different corporations can complete the request. The request difficulty should be based off of total corp members and a ratio of online to total players. The agent housing needs to be vulnerable to attack, and it needs to be possible to lose your agent, in this way you generate PvP opportunities in the form of truly harassing the ISK source of the significant portion of the system population. As there would be multiple corporations in an alliance, there will be multiple Housing structures in the system, which will generate multiple locations to stimulate PvP. Thanks for the read!
Not a a fan of this as it is far too easy to mess around with. Agent missions should be outpost based.
The mechanics behind them would be just as now with other station upgrades and would consist of 4 levels. At level 1 you have a level 1 mission agent. After running enough missions you can then upgrade to level 2 which gives a level 1 and 2 agent. At max upgrade you would have 4 agents in the station consisting of level 1, 2, 3 and 4 agent.
The reason why it is best done this way is because it means CCP has far less work to do than building a whole new system. Running missions is already more dangerous than running anoms simply by having them jumping into another system 50% of the time and with the other changes in place you would have much more densely populated systems which will make intel from local much more unreliable.
As a side note anoms would not be getting removed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13019
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 09:51:00 -
[129] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: I disagree completely on the super capitals docking. That would reduce their loss rate massively. If high SP characters leave game because they got into a titan that is THEIR problem, they knew that would happen. What game needs is MORE INTERESTING high end options and gameplay for those characters, so that they do not go into supers.
And I think super capitals need a plex manteiance fee (or jump drive does nto work until you pay all due taxes). TO makealliances have only the supers that they really need and are willing to use.
Docking supers will just make an extra incentive to have more supers built and stores and would make the 0.0 super fleets problem far worse. We need reasons for people NOT use a titan, not the contrary.
I also used to think supers should not be allowed to dock but frankly, we gain nothing by forcing them to log out in a tower and having a high SP character stuck in a space coffin that sees use once or twice a month isn't a good thing. Letting them dock wont result in any more of a cold war style build up of supers than we have now.
They would be losing both their E-war immunity and their current immunity to damage when used in fleets and your idea for plex for titan would punish smaller alliances and do nothing to the larger ones. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13019
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 10:15:00 -
[130] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Naa. smaller alliance have what? 4-5 titans? Easy to pay. But when you need to pay for STOCKPILED titans like goons and PL have, that starts to hurt a lot. Imagine paying a hundred plexes per month for something that might be used in the next 1 year?
We don't have stockpiles of titans. They are not national assets, they are privately owned but we do replace them if they are lost in strat ops, a plex a month is nothing. Private owners of titans in small alliances or corps however would be hurt by this added need.
Kagura Nikon wrote: Otherwise, with dockable titans, and no reason to not stockpile them, you know both sides soon would have 500 titans on reserve and stockpiled. Losing ewar immunity would not be enough, if lossing titans woudl mean nothing for any alliance because they can buy one from the huge stockpiles around.
Losing a titan or ten is already a none issue to us.
Kagura Nikon wrote: If titans and supers dock, there NEED to be a reason to not make huge stockpiles of them. Even if the PLEX is charged for the right to DOCK them (so at least used titans form smaller groups are not affected, but stockpiling them becomes prohibitive)
We do this by getting rid of the need to have vast capital blobs. This is where the change to occupancy sov comes in, if you get rid of the need to grind down vast amounts of EHP in a handful of set battles you reduce the effectiveness of the super blob massively. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13019
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 10:48:00 -
[131] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Remember that massive use of capitals and especially supercapitals leads to "easy win" situations. Not only because those ships are superior , but also because amount of sub capitals and capitals needed to brake their tank and eat their EHP is way to big for eve servers.
Both HED and B-R proved this.
In HED battle hundreds of dreads died as after jumping in pilots could not do any thing. Cycle guns, activate hardeners, jump out when they had cap , some of people got their KM while still sitting in the warp tunel. All of this because node was not able to withstand number of incoming players , players using adequate means to enemy forces already present in a system.
B-R was just confirmation of stuff that happened in HED - first objective - reduce people in local, remove as many subcapitals as possible in order for node not to become bugged like the HED- one.
B-R was only possible because subcapitals where blocking other subcapitals reinforcements in other systems. Nodes under heavy TIDI don't work - normal conditions do not applied , they always favor people already present on grid.
Currently all groups know this , and if there is no other force capable of brining more supers , just drop as many you can in order to block your enemy from taking any action.
This also have to go. CCP have to make supercapitals vulnerable to subcapitals in order to enforce proper subcapital cover.
That is where the logi nerf and E-war immunity removal comes in. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13019
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 11:08:00 -
[132] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:I do not agree that this is enough. Let say that you drop : 200+ slowcats ( sentry of fighter ones) 20-50 motherships 20-40 titans Some dreads.
Something that is sadly quite common on todays timers, this is just base group , more ships are waiting. Recalculate how much Damage you have to do in order to grind on those ships in resonable time. Include in this calculations TIDI , and how much time it will offer for a reinforcements to formup and bridge. Remember that all of those ships shoot.
Node will still die or bug itself. You will be still on the worst situation as enemy is again on the grid.
Key difference with the changes would be the carriers not having sentries and the capitals not being immune to subcap firepower and the supers being able to be jammed or having disruptors put on them to reduce their range and/or locking time.
The two big issues with capital blobs of today is that the sentry carriers can hit anything with the firepower of two fleets and that capital reps mean you need a titan blob the alpha past the logi. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13019
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 11:30:00 -
[133] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:For me base concept capital only feets is something bad for this game. Ewar immunity could solve some of the issues , but again this have to come with all other changes to jump bridges and titan bridges.
Jump bridge networks will be heavily nerfed under our plan indirectly. Titan bridges are being indirectly impacted by removing the need to send fleets hafl way across null to protect assets.
Anthar Thebess wrote: Do you thing that significant boost ( yes boost ) to dreads could solve this situation a bit?
No, dreads are by far the most balanced caps and are in a good place. Deal with the logistics problem and dreads will be very effective. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13019
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 11:54:00 -
[134] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: Again what i'm asking .
Will heavily boosting dread DPS at the cost of tracking (or damage against subcapitals) could bring something good to current mechanic before more major changes will be put in place?
Dread DPS is again just few bytes in database , adjusting it now - to help this game to move again - and change after other changes are done - simple thing to do especially that the only thing you have to modify is the damage multiplier on the siege module.
No, dread DPS is perfect as it is the problem is with the capital/super RR. Just like with subcaps the only way to beat capital RR is to alpha past the reps. You deal with the logi and you solve the problem. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13020
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 12:29:00 -
[135] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:baltec1 wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote: Again what i'm asking .
Will heavily boosting dread DPS at the cost of tracking (or damage against subcapitals) could bring something good to current mechanic before more major changes will be put in place?
Dread DPS is again just few bytes in database , adjusting it now - to help this game to move again - and change after other changes are done - simple thing to do especially that the only thing you have to modify is the damage multiplier on the siege module.
No, dread DPS is perfect as it is the problem is with the capital/super RR. Just like with subcaps the only way to beat capital RR is to alpha past the reps. You deal with the logi and you solve the problem. Yes , but again. What we are stating in this topic is totally new EVE. Many mechanic that needs to be changed - we are talking about ~ hell of a work. What i am asking is elevating dread DPS will help to solve the abuse of node killing EHP , and current structure EHP. Why dreads and not carriers? - they are again very vulnerable to sub capitals. - their damage is only huge while in siege - cannot receive remote reps while in siege - base on their own damage system, and don't use smaller size weapons like carriers. Again tweek to damage modifier on siege modules and tracking speed can be done by CCP within few minutes -> situation is going bad -> tweek - fast DT - and all stuff is going back to normal. Eve urgently needs boosting of the ~fun~ part. Yes thousands ships will die because of this change - but that's what eve is about, the nullsec part.
Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the firepower already. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13020
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 13:51:00 -
[136] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:baltec1 wrote: Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the fire-power already.
Hmm no. You like most of the people here stated that current structure EHP blocking most of the actions. If dreads had enough dps then this will not be an issue. Why boosting dread dps - before ccp fix other stuff in ~3~ years is bad thing?
They do have enough firepower, you don't need many to kill a POS. The EHP issues will also go away with the plan we have. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13021
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 14:06:00 -
[137] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:baltec1 wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:baltec1 wrote: Dreads don't need a DPS buff. They have the fire-power already.
Hmm no. You like most of the people here stated that current structure EHP blocking most of the actions. If dreads had enough dps then this will not be an issue. Why boosting dread dps - before ccp fix other stuff in ~3~ years is bad thing? They do have enough firepower, you don't need many to kill a POS. The EHP issues will also go away with the plan we have. I totally agree with you about this, especially last sentence. But : 1. Like you stated - this is our plan - not the CCP one. We don't know if CCP even plans going in this directions. 2. I am not talking about POS , but also about sov structures. 3. We see from blogs/ posts that they work also on some other stuff - sometimes good one - but i see this as resources not focused on fixing nullsec , capitas, supers and sov. 4. We are talking about big changes , very big - and ccp is still balancing cruisers. That is why i am asking , can a mid term fix to enormous ehp can be boost to dreads. Why not reducing all structure ehp - because dreads will also put more pressure on other broken (super)capitals.
That would cause a whole raft of new problems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13032
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 17:38:00 -
[138] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
If you implement the no need for supers BEFORE the dockable titans and the result is VERY soudn then yes. But risking to allow dockable titans before you know if the plan to reduce their need succeed is TOO dangerous ( you know almost nothign work as planned in eve)
Naturally, letting supers and titans dock would be near last if not the very last thing on the list of null fixes. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13032
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 17:39:00 -
[139] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Much easier and better would be to cut all EHP of all structures to 1/4th of current numbers. Woudl give more value for battleships.
Disagree strongly, We could cause a lot of damage if this happens via suicide dreads. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13456
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 21:08:00 -
[140] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:SMUG
Subcaps rejoice. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13460
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 21:19:00 -
[141] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:I do enjoy the tidi gatetravel fleets so much
Now you can do it in your moros!
We should probably invest heavily in those warp speed mod BPOs and implants. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13495
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 15:17:00 -
[142] - Quote
The Slayer wrote:Question, if the Devs are still anywhere near this thread :
Gate use. Is gate use restricted to CAPITAL ships or will Supers be able to use gates too? And if they are - whats to stop a super dropping aggro, jumping through a gate and then jumping to a cyno before invuln timer is up on the other side?
Yes to the first and nothing to the second. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13496
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 16:38:00 -
[143] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:baltec1 wrote:The Slayer wrote:Question, if the Devs are still anywhere near this thread :
Gate use. Is gate use restricted to CAPITAL ships or will Supers be able to use gates too? And if they are - whats to stop a super dropping aggro, jumping through a gate and then jumping to a cyno before invuln timer is up on the other side? Yes to the first and nothing to the second. super gate bait... I DO like that change lol.
I already have a dread fit that can roam with cruiser gangs Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13500
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 17:13:00 -
[144] - Quote
Bl1SkR1N wrote:Our cva friend made a fair point....whole provi force owns one region and they rarely dont have enough pvp :P
Many ppl seem to underestimate how much is this going to change null. They think about this like the jump dustance would change while do the routine of running around galaxy every week and looking for someone to dunk on.
There is a good chance provi will burn due to the jump changes. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13508
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 19:38:00 -
[145] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:SFM Hobb3s wrote:baltec1 wrote:I already have a dread fit that can roam with cruiser gangs Very cool. Also adding pods to overview. Sounds like hes gonna need a few boots with that fleet to act as logi too now.
As a side note carriers can warp faster than frigates and still be surprisingly effective at their job. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13560
|
Posted - 2014.10.06 19:10:00 -
[146] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Love to see you try to explain that one when both have 3 rig slots and one has 30% of the warp speed of the other....
Hel hits over 6 AU, assault frigates go 5.5 AU. Unlike the assault frigate the Hel can afford to use those rig slots for warp speed and still be viable for fleet work.
Realistically these things will be keeping to battleship and cruiser speeds and used as super heavy logistics. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13560
|
Posted - 2014.10.06 19:18:00 -
[147] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote: Oh knock it off... Comparing one with a full set of high-grade ascendency implants, 3 low slot modules and 3 T2 rigs vs nothing in the latter....
Fit up said assault frigate as the primary ship in a fleet, see how well you do against anything. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13560
|
Posted - 2014.10.06 19:32:00 -
[148] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:I'm not interested, I'm simply calling you out on your utter bollocks blanket statement.
To point out, A dread only need one t2 warp rig, a set of high grade ascensions and a WS-618 to hit cruiser warp speeds. Use the MWD and it will align fast enough to roam with them.
Carriers taking part in a battleship fleet can simply use the mid grade impants and a WS-608 and can use the mwd to get aligned quickly. Carriers are going to be used in main subcap doctrines, this is all but garenteed because its damn easy to do. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15169
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 12:44:09 -
[149] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can we get sov / null changes update in upcoming o7 ?
You gotta wait for the keynotes at fanfest.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
|