|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
306
   |
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:26:42 -
[1] - Quote
I really like these changes a lot. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
307
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:39 -
[2] - Quote
Murkelost wrote:This is a very bad idea since it forces alliances to focus to a single TZ. And the entosis link is OP, since like a ceptor can fly around ihub's at ludicrous per sec and take the ihub. Entosis should be forced into siege mode as it go active in it's task.
I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:51:48 -
[3] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:and so begins the subbing of accounts.. month to month screw paying you guys months upfront.. EVER AGAIN.
take your plex and stick it.
Why dont you like the changes? |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:01:28 -
[4] - Quote
Lister Vindaloo wrote:There is no excuse for being able to use your 'prime time' window to exclude entire time zones from participating in alliance/corporation activities, it is simply a divisive, segregating mechanic that will disillusion entire groups from attempting to participate in sov warfare, it HAS to go, i dont know how to respond to anyone who supports it as it only reduces content rather than increase it
That's BS. If you are EUTZ and your alliamce has aa USTZ window, you can still go attack other EUTZ sov. Therefore you are still participating in sov warfare. If you want to take part in defensive sov warfare in your USTZ window then alarm clock for it. Or leave and join an EUTZ alliance. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:48:55 -
[5] - Quote
Zhalon wrote:1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears.
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
308
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:03:14 -
[6] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Altirius Saldiaro wrote:Zhalon wrote:1) ....not sure how you address cloaky campers.
No local, no afk cloaker. The answer is to just delay local and actually make nullsec challenging to live in. Guard your gates, scout the routes to your home. There should be consequences for being lazy nullbears. correct. this system changes how you think about null. If you have a strategically important system that you want to keep, act like it and have a standing fleet to protect your damn space. I see you and CCP are of like mind. Both of you just want to make sov warfare as "dynamic" and "engaging" as possible, and knowingly place the emphasis in this new system under the attacking force, rather than the defending force. And yet you fail to address the reasons why someone might want to hold that sov in the first place. EVE is risk AND reward. The balance is currently too far skewed towards risk in nullsec, and this expansion does little to really address rewards as it increases risks even further.
Having the luxury of a local channel tell you who is in system is very risky indeed. Its so hard to live in nullsec.
We have all sorts of risks in wspace. We deal with those risks and still get our rewards. You want more safety in nullsec? Maybe CCP should just extend your local channel to constellation wide so you can see reds farther out. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:13:14 -
[7] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:
So, your point is you do not generally like interceptors? And nothing to do with this thread in any way otherwise?
Thank you for sharing that with us.
And once again, you prove that you can't actually read. You go right on with your ignorance, I haven't the time. You have proven over thousand of troll posts to have ample time, what you do not have is a valid argument. I do, you just didn't bother reading it. You were too busy restating your talking points like a broken record.
Code. doesn't have valid arguments. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
313
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:00:39 -
[8] - Quote
People keep asking for an incentive for sov. With the new sov system require action taken throughout the constellation, I believe this will play into the coming player made stargates. I believe sov of an entire constellation will be required to anchor a stargate. Most likely to allow for structuring new connectivity between the constellation systems themselves, as well as aa way to estaablish a new connection with another constellation if you own sov there too.
Imagine being able to reshape the connections within your owned constellation. reduce reliance on jump bridges. Enabling your alliance to immediately respond to any threat in your constellation from any system in your constellation without having to make 3 or 4 jumps.
example: 8 system constellation. your alliance anchors stargates in every system so that each system connects to each system in the constellation. Allowing your defensive fleets to not so easily be blockaded by attackers. Huge advantage for your alliance. Shiny infrustructure for others to want to claim for themselves.
I believe player made stargates will be the major incentive for owning sovereignty of a constellation. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
313
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:06:14 -
[9] - Quote
Rainus Max wrote:Its probably been asked but why are a single system's sov bunkers (or whatever the hell they are) scattered across the constellation? If you are going to do that wouldn't it make more sense to change the sov claim from a system based one to a constellation?
because player made stargates are coming. Constellation sov will, I believe, be the major basis for anchoring a new stargate. |
|
|
| |
|