|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
304
   |
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:11:17 -
[1] - Quote
Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:24:59 -
[2] - Quote
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:Tiberian Deci wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Please tell me that once the Entosis link is activated on a structure it will not be dependent on maintaining a target lock on the structure. If it does, I'm certain that some entities known for blobbing will show up with 600 ecm ships for every "fight" and sov battles will be even worse than they are now. Maybe they'll make it like triage/siege/bastion where you're immune to electronic warfare while its active. Definitely something worth bringing up. They said the ship can't receive remote assistance while it's active. I assume that'll be the same as triage, siege and bastion.
I think the idea was that when the Entosis link is active you would become ewar immune similar to how you are in triage/siege/bastion. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
306
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:36:39 -
[3] - Quote
Saidin Thor wrote:I'm not sure CCP has ever had to deal with IHhub logistics first-hand. Being easy to destroy may or may not be a good thing, but IHubs are a HUGE pain to place and upgrade right now. Bigger upgrades AND the IHubs themselves can only be transported in a freighter right now. There's no way a little alliance has the logistics capacity to regularly replace IHubs that roaming gangs will be destroying just for the lulz unless that changes.
If you want to stick with the "but sov logistics should be hard" mantra, then at least resizing them for jump freighters would be better than nothing. Ideally, making IHubs and their upgrades Blockade Runner size would open up a lot of options for the little guy.
Another change related to IHubs I would suggest is allowing IHubs to be placed on moons (so you can place them next to POSes). This gives an alliance the OPTION to have a VERY LOW barrier to messing with system upgrades. A POS isn't particularly difficult to defang even with a small group, but gives an IHub some level of protection against marauders that are just trying to salt the fields.
Also the premise that defenders will regularly use jump bridges during capture events has to be a joke, right? Have the CCP employees that live in null sec ever tried chaining jump bridges since the fatigue changes went through? Let us know how that worked out for them for the subsequent two weeks.
Yeah if they intend to go on with these new mechanics then ihubs and all of their upgrades need to be reduced in size to fit in a JF. Might want to think about introducing some of those new upgrades when these changes go live because right now it's really borderline as far as it being worth it to live in null to make isk. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
318
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 17:09:53 -
[4] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:CCP, can you please address the point to living in null sec? I mean my logic is that because there is more risk to living in null sec there should be more reward, but as it stands this is not the case. Do you have any plans to address the gaping goatse-sized hole in the risk vs. reward proprotion of nullsec vs say high sec?
Thanks.
Yours in christ,
Aryndel Vyst
Director of Personnel Operations and Logistics
Goonswarm Federation
Of course not. I mean why make nullsec space actually worth living in BEFORE you make it a pain in the ass to defend? Putting the cart before the horse is CCP standard deployment methodology. |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 13:08:52 -
[5] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them? 1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE. 2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright. 3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the " Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well.
Why would you make the ihub easier to capture than the TCU when it is the far more valuable and difficult to replace structure? |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 13:09:18 -
[6] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Andrea Keuvo wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them? 1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE. 2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright. 3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the " Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well. Why would you make the ihub easier to capture than the TCU when it is the far more valuable and difficult to replace structure? I just want to see diversity. I want to see place for capital fights in new sov warfare. Swap construction costs and freighter requirements, whatever.
Yeah actually what might not be too terrible would be:
1. TCU can be RFed and then killed using Entosis link mechanic. If there is no TCU in system the station/ihub can be immediately attacked as outlined in point 2 below.
2. When the TCU is dead the station can be RFed using Entosis link mechanic into Freeport mode. The ihub retains the HP it has under current sov mechanics and can also be RFed into it's first timer.
Additional station timers use the Entosis link mechanic, additional ihub timers use HP grind mechanics.
Only one ihub can exist per system (you have to grind the old ihub before you can drop one and place upgrades).
This way you can shut off station services, Freeport stations, kill TCUs using the new mechanic but to kill someone's ihub/upgrades and make the space worthless requires some commitment and actually provides capitals/supers some role in fozziesov. It also gives the TCU some value and eliminates the troll killing of ihubs that will make sov worth even less than it is now. |
|
|
| |
|