| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
   |
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:20:27 -
[1] - Quote
Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone. We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose. If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity.
I just noticed I wasn't posting on my main.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:31:50 -
[2] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? We have been doing it for the last 5 years.
Then this mechanic shouldn't be much of a change for your people with the exception that you may get more fights that aren't dependent on an apex force. Again, it sounds like the new mechanic would be working because either you win because they don't undock or they fight and GFs are had.
The point is to inject activity and these changes would seem to do that allowing the occupants of systems to determine the outcome by being active or inactive. Taking and holding sov by occupancy instead of HP.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:49:12 -
[3] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote: how long can you pilots keep it up? I have absolutely no doubt that if an organization as large as Goonswarm can reliably entertain it's members by RF'ing the rest of nullsec every few days, then they absolutely will just because they can.
That is the point isn't it? Entertaining your pilots through activity and conflict not sitting idle and docking up when a neut enters system. As it is, docking up is a viable counter to neuts in system but soon docking up will cause you to lose you sov because the occupants are not active.
I am looking forward to watching GSF burn null to the ground because it makes the game interesting. I might even jump back into null and for the record I hope they do burn this ***** to the ground just for the tears.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 01:58:45 -
[4] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Then this mechanic shouldn't be much of a change for your people with the exception that you may get more fights that aren't dependent on an apex force. Again, it sounds like the new mechanic would be working because either you win because they don't undock or they fight and GFs are had.
The point is to inject activity and these changes would seem to do that allowing the occupants of systems to determine the outcome by being active or inactive. Taking and holding sov by occupancy instead of HP.
There are issues. The first being the trollcepter puts too much dickery in our hands. The second is there is no reason for any new organisation to bother trying to take a system for themselves.
It does give you all a lot of asshat tools to play with but I don't always see that as a bad thing. Good organization, incentives and recruitment should be rewarded with the ability to pull tears and create chaos.
What would be your fix for the trollcepter?
As for new organisations, my guess would be that phase three would be some type of system buff that offers sov holding corp/alliances a reason to hold sov. They have and/are limiting apex and force projection and we are in the process of "fixing" sov mechanics and the next logical step would be to develop a way to make that sov worth holding. Through adding incentives that work off of the newly developed mechanics by introducing new structures and methods of upgrades that work off of those mechanics.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:15:11 -
[5] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:What would be your fix for the trollcepter? Don't allow it. And what would you say if large alliances were even more vulnerable to it by forcing them to have longer primetimes? I'm thinking 16-24 hours for someone of the size of the CFC/N3 And ofc disregarding any attempts at gaming the system with buffer alliances etc which can be countered with further limitations on sov tba. Why do you think that having sov should be a job? I'm really curious about that, because it seems like you're all in favor of mechanics that basically strap sov owners to their chairs with intravenous drips in their arms.
Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:21:38 -
[6] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
What would be your fix for the trollcepter?
Don't allow it. If CCP wants to encourage actual fights, then allowing an interceptor or nullified ship to be able to flip things will only cause frustration and not lead to many kills. Sure, they might trigger some timers, but it is highly unlikely that the aggressing group would show up to actually flip it.
I understand the problem with interceptors and why they don't encourage fights. How far should we go with it? Should covert ops, T3 cruisers and black ops be restricted as well? They can be just as dangerous or even more so than an interceptor because they can actually put up a fight if the defender happens to show up in force.
I do like the idea of the E-link being a BC and up module but I also like the options that fitting it to any ship offers. I am to the point where it should be a deployable that can be scooped up, that way at least there is a higher chance of it being destroyed or lost if the defenders show up.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:24:26 -
[7] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
Where is the incentive to make players want to do that job? I agree that 4 hours is too narrow and one flat time frame does not scale, but the core of Eve is social dynamic between individuals and attempting to break that core up with no carrots will not help Eve Online.
That will probably come with phase three, there needs to be something because everything else will be taken care of if the changes are worked out and implemented.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:29:54 -
[8] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Holding sov should be a job, not one that takes up all your time but it shouldn't be a cake walk either. I think making the prime time longer for larger groups would be a good change. Maybe a max of like 12 hours but the member count should be tied to prime time length.
It's already 4 hours, per structure every day. All it takes is a few cov ops frigates cloaked in their systems. When I have a few minutes, I reinforce their TCUs and they have to spend 4 hours there the following day on the off chance I show up and ninja their stuff. Per structure. I can do this with station services too, with basically no recourse for the defender. They can. not. stop. me. from reinforcing their stuff while they sleep, unless they just don't sleep. And you would rather it was 12 hours, per structure, every day.
baltec1 wrote:Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:08:51 -
[9] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That, or it means that they've succeeded in the objective of the rebalance, take only as much sov as you can reasonably defend. The goal here isn't "make it unviable to have large groups", you realize.
I do realize that and if a large group can't defend it's borders it is either bad or too large to work as a cohesive group and should reevaluate it's sov holding.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:11:31 -
[10] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That only means we can mess with even more people for longer. We are one of the few organisations that can effectively defend round the clock.
You would probably be one of the few organisations that has a 12 hour prime time.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:18:14 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:baltec1 wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
If a large group can field enough players to RF all of null each weekend and not reducing the home defense then maybe it should be longer.
That only means we can mess with even more people for longer. We are one of the few organisations that can effectively defend round the clock. You would probably be one of the few organisations that has a 12 hour prime time. Brave would have more than us.
Then they should **** or get off the pot. I don't care who it is. Defend it or lose it.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 03:54:45 -
[12] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Tamdra Beebort wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There isnt anything extreme about it.
Right now we have several sigs out attacking all across eve while running a highsec organisation, WH sigs and a large home defence force. We can deploy several thousand pilots to the task of attacking targets without reducing home defence.
I get that and I believe that you can and do but the next question is how long can you pilots keep it up? It is the opposite of blue balling, seems like after the first week or so of E-linking a structure to just be chased off to another would drive burn-out up. GSF is great at organizing but individuals are already complaining about having to be vigilant just to keep their space. How long will it last? Is GSF capable of continuing a "burn Null" campaign for more than a month or so. I am trying to look at this objectively because I want the game to fun and interesting to everyone. We shouldn't get tunnel vision on one specific hull or setup to the point that it blinds us from the point of the changes, fun. We want fun fights and hell camping a station for a week may be fun to one side and not the other but with these changes the fight has to continue in different parts of space and that will probably require more that a few ceptors with an E-link and if it doesn't then the losing side deserves to lose. If you flood a region with interceptors and it causes lots of fights, some of which escalate in larger fights then the mechanic works and if you flood a region and the occupants don't defend and lose space the mechanic works. Either way I don't see how one group can keep up a sustained offensive of system trolling without suffering burnout or without causing larger fights. Either way there will be a winner and loser and both will be determined more by activity and less by inactivity. There are so many people here that are like this, Goonswarm gone burn out because of this mechanice because they can't keep up the pressure. I bet few of you have been on the reseving end of what Goons can do to a single corp or how much time they can put down to RF towers and remote systems. Goons have the biggest propeganda machine in this game, no other alliance can spewe out so much news about their own doing as them. In the short fountain war that lasted 2 weeks, right after Pheobe goons travled over 60 jumps several times back and forth to defend their systsmes from N3 and not enought with that they had own groupes that spent days behind enemy line RF systems fare away from the front. If you think your little 10 man operation to get some uesless space that no one us is gone tier out goons and not make them griefe you even more you are wronge. And this is just why we trying to fight this FW 2.0 systems Fozzie have made, is because of the amount of griefe that this glitchy game mechanics make avaible for goon to use.
Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:02:09 -
[13] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Not everyone has the timezone coverage to defend 16 hours a day. So no, I disagree with you to a certain extent. Defend it or lose it, yes. But don't make it unnecessarily difficult to defend, based on arbitrary penalties grounded in arbitrary limits.
I agree 100%. The prime time to player ratio should be very conservative and it shouldn't put arbitrary penalties on groups, it should promote emergent play and by lengthening prime time it adds player error and organization to the equation. It would force larger groups to depend on more people for defense but allow smaller group to rely on fewer players. I don't have a number in mind but it shouldn't be so long the group is always open to attack but it shouldn't be so short that the largest groups can game the system.
Player count may not be the best metric to use. I don't know what what number would be best but I do think that the PT (prime time) should fluctuate with some type of metric tied to the group.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:07:44 -
[14] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Never had a problem with goons or their methods, in fact I am a fan of how they operate. My point is that with the new mechanics it will not be as easy for them to defend what they have like they can now. I totally think they can do whatever they want to do but only for a few months. Not many players will want to play if they can only warp to a point and warp away, not saying it can't or won't be done. I'm just saying that it won't happen for extended periods of time. Goons like to blueball not get blueballed and they like to win. This type of game play won't allow them to win unless they stay to fight and these types of fights won't allow large blobs to form as easily and won't cater as easily to blueballing. Those are two of the main tactics for Goons.
So you defending this FW 2.0 system because it will chase all the people running null sec at this moment out of the game, bravo. Have fun orbirting Command Nods <.<
I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.
Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:21:26 -
[15] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up, every change dredges up these same types of arguments. Some are valid and some are not and I want what is best for the game not a group. Change will always hurt or help some group and discussion is the best way to work out kinks.
Also, maybe the people running null sec at the moment need to chased out of null sec or out of their way of thinking because look at where we are at.
Making null sec into a part time job is not what's best for the game. But guess the mighty high sec dwellers always know best and they are defentily gone defend their space that day they get it without no resistance because no one wants it. Only 10% of null sec systems are worth living in I say if you guys want to live in the rest 90% I wont stop you guys. FInaly maybe you will see how useless null realy is and why we all got High sec alts doing our ISK making. BUt if this system get implemented just know it's gone be years at least until they will change it again.
Like I said before, phase three will probably be an upgrade system for sov holders. I know that most space is useless, unprofitable and whatever else you want to call it and without incentives to live in that space there is no reason to hold it. Even my inferior high sec mind can grasp that, that's why I left null over a year ago. It is not interesting to me and if and when it becomes interesting again I will move back. We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:50:19 -
[16] - Quote
Kah'Les wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
Like I said before, phase three will probably be an upgrade system for sov holders. I know that most space is useless, unprofitable and whatever else you want to call it and without incentives to live in that space there is no reason to hold it. Even my inferior high sec mind can grasp that, that's why I left null over a year ago. It is not interesting to me and if and when it becomes interesting again I will move back. We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change.
I hate this arugment the most, well you don't know what Phase 3 is so just sit down and wait for what CCP is gone do because that is probably gone fixe everything. It's just how I we been sitting doing nothing waiting for a proper null sec warfare system just to get a Faction Warfare copy instead. But if we wait another 6 months it's gone be rewarding guys. I rather have the current system than some cheap copy, just find a way to lower the amount of timers.
We wanted change, no we don't because it is too change.
We don't want to shoot structures, well yes we do because there isn't really any other way to do it.
We want occupancy based sov even though we can't define it in any meaningful way.
Null is stagnate and it needs to be changed as long as it stays the same.
We don't want timers unless it changes how sov works then timers are okay.
CCP hasn't changed anything in a good way ever so they need to change sov but don't do it if changes how sov works.
Make it so that smaller groups can take sov but don't make it where smaller groups can harass larger groups.
We want players to be active unless it interrupts our playtime.
No matter what they do they are going to be wrong so why even try? We can't have both sides. There is no other way to capture sov besides shooting things with stuff and waiting on a timer because this is a video game and that is how they work.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:56:55 -
[17] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:We shouldn't let bitter vet syndrome set in before things even change. No, in fact people should make sure to not let up on lighting a fire under their asses so the game doesn't get half baked, unfocused changes piecemeal. That's a big damned problem with EVE, throughout it's history. Iterative changes are fine now and then, but not for something like this.
You are right we should hold them to the fire and do our best to make it the best we can through feedback and discussion.
I was referring to his comment about making sov a partime job and how only 10% of space is worth anything. It should be a partime job or you shouldn't be there. Making all space worth something is what needs to happen and phase two doesn't address that, it addresses mechanics of taking and holding sov.
Kah'Les wrote:Making null sec into a part time job is not what's best for the game. But guess the mighty high sec dwellers always know best and they are defentily gone defend their space that day they get it without no resistance because no one wants it. Only 10% of null sec systems are worth living in I say if you guys want to live in the rest 90% I wont stop you guys. FInaly maybe you will see how useless null realy is and why we all got High sec alts doing our ISK making. BUt if this system get implemented just know it's gone be years at least until they will change it again.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:55:05 -
[18] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:I am defending FW 2.0 because it will shake things up Defending a change because "it will shake things up" is just about the most myopic justification that I can imagine. So what if it does? There's always some increase in activity after a major change in game mechanics, but this is always transient. You need to judge changes based upon the routines that players will settle into with the new mechanics, not the actions they'll take in adjusting to them. This is the same mistake that CCP is making regarding the Phoebe travel changes. They've pointed to the flurry of activity after the patch and considered this an indication that their design was a success.
What is the indication of success?
Pilots losing more ships?
Players living in Null?
Industrial jobs in Null?
By your definition there never will be a success because there will always be a ebb and flow based on the release cycle we have now. CCP's original stated goal was to create a system that takes players another 10 years to master. The new mechanic has is flaws but I don't think it is as bad as many - mostly GSF - make it out to be. This thread is no different than any other thread about changes except in length.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:59:48 -
[19] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:[
Yes, but if you aren't willing to put in the work to hold the space then move to HS or LS. Null sec should be work just like WH should be work.
And, according to you, sitting on a structure all the time should be where that bar is set.
What else is there? You don't want HP or timer grinds. We want small groups to be able to take sov, we want to encourage fights, we want fights spread out across a larger area to combat TiDi and we want people to undock and be active. How do we do all those things? This E-link thing is the closest thing we can get to that, it needs work but it seems to be the best solution to the problems we have now.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:05:07 -
[20] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:oh and some stats for you, make of them what you will Apparently CODEdot is all worked up about SOV.
Did this beat the JF thread?
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:44:57 -
[21] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Seraph IX Basarab wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:
What else is there?
Don't even try a false dichotomy. There are more alternatives to sov warfare than grinding structures endlessly and having to babysit each and every structure forever. The 2 minute cycle time is too short, can be done at too long of a distance, and if it's available to frigates it does not give the defender any ability to respond to a pre-reinforced attack short of sitting on that structure literally all the time. That is not an acceptable solution. At what distance would this be happening? The module has a range of 250km. So any distance you feel like, or more accurately any distance you can get out of your choice of capture ship. It makes actually trying to kill them an unviable option(although you can still sensor damp them), which means that you default to sitting on the button yourself with your own Entosis link until the lone attacker gets bored and leaves. The tiny cycle time also opens up the floodgates for using a cov ops ship to ninja cap structures should the system be left alone even for a few moments. Both mechanics combine to basically necessitate having people sit on structures nigh constantly, unless they want to come back every half hour to un-reinforce their structure. (which means they're "defending" their sov, but never using it)
I still think a deployable would almost be a better choice, it would be an ISK sink (somewhat), it would be easy to destroy and would stop frigates from jumping system to system just RFing things without major risk. Make the deployable scoopable by the attacker or defender.
Why not have both a deployable that does it in 3 minutes and a module that takes 5. 75km range.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:36:46 -
[22] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month.
I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:45:02 -
[23] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Damned if I'm going to read 150 pages. Has anyone addressed how caps and supers will play into all of this yet? I know you can make a theoretical argument that every serious fight will escalate, but I don't see a necessary escalation path, given the mechanics as they have been described here.
Will caps and supers only be necessary for contesting moons after this patch?
I've thought about this and I think that the most they will contribute will be a massive HP pool or aid in escalations, I hope that they find a better role for ships bigger that BCs. Maybe some type of bonus to the length of the E-link or something because if we continue down this path it seems to be subcaps online.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
119
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:14:15 -
[24] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Burl en Daire wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:LOL. I DARE YOU to really convince 20 thousand players to do that all the time. At least fro more than 1 month. I have said the same thing but it is GSF and they have all the everything. I agree that they can muster up a large portion of the player base but I don't think that they have enough pull to have much more than a few thousand players at any given time-that aren't alts-to put into action and defiantly not for more than a month or so. If that, organization goes a long way but people have lives and I don't think they have that kind of numbers or stamina. It comes down to drive and commitment, and we have a lot of both. With the right direction, we have in the past engaged in some pretty wrist-slashingly self-harming behavoir in order to inflict greater suffering on others, or in order to make a point. And I imagine the first thing we'll want to do it this goes through as-is, is make the biggest, loudest point we can contrive. And the thing is, it is in our interest to do so. I will say in no uncertain terms, I hate Interceptors. I hate chasing them (because you never catch them), and I hate flying them (because you have to disengage when anything vaguely like a fight looks at you). They are the single greatest example of risk-aversion in the game. I accept that they have a purpose (chasing and capturing those who seek to escape a fight), that they are desired to fulfill, but I feel they fulfill far too many things outside their remit, that they have no buisness doing. That said, if we get told to get in to Interceptors to show how horribly broken they will be in this current version of the rules, I damn well will do, even if I personally loathe every minute, simply because not making this point will in the long run make every other party of the game far more miserable for me.
I have no doubt in what you have said but realistically it probably won't happen because herding over a thousand players for more than a moth just to troll a system pushes the boundary, yeah a few hundred here and there and maybe a week or two at a time but I seriously doubt that even GSF has the pull to keep its numbers high and the attrition low for more that a month of boring, tedious play, especially if they are having to do it on multiple alts, lets face the facts, there aren't as many GSF individual players are there are members. How many play in BRAVE just to have more fun/hour?
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
123
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 06:14:43 -
[25] - Quote
Have the corporation declare one held system the capital system. The capital system would declare the prime time and once the capital system moves to level two any system connected to it by a gate could be taken and upgraded to level one. Each level the capital increased would allow the connected system to upgrade one level and every system connected to level two or higher systems could be claimed and upgraded to one level below the connected claimed system.
Each sov level would increase the true sec level and allow for better wealth generation. Each Sov level increase would decrease the prime time window by one hour. Level one sov would have a 5 hour prime time and L2 would have a 4 PT and so on with L5 having a 1 hour PT window.
Having the sov level increase true sec level would give residents a reason to live in the space and upgrade their system. The ISK income still needs to be looked at but at least it would give all sov null the ability to have the highest rewards for being active in the system. As the group grows they could spread out organically out from their capital system.
The leveling system would ensure that used systems became better ISK generators and harder to take but wouldn't allow groups to just take buffer regions without living there. Active occupancy would determine how much ISK could be generated in that system.
All the E-link stuff is good, tweak the values so that some ships can't disengage easily and run away but the system as a whole is good.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
125
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 23:14:23 -
[26] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:You want to reduce someones indices, just have a few cloaky campers online around the clock.
No mining, no ratting = No indices. So simple, So exploitable. No effective counter.
The effective counter is to not dock up. Being active and ready/willing to fight is the counter. If nothing happens you win and if a fight happens it is content.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
| |
|