|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
314
   |
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:22:32 -
[1] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.
It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch the ceptor" if he can't warp off he's far more catchable, like with a loki :P
Unless he's also ewar immune :) |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:05:02 -
[2] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: A ceptor that cannot move for 5 min can be killed even by a HAULER!!
There is no point whatsoever, where they said the new module will stop a ship from MOVING. There are similarities to the bastion module, but the two are not identical!
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:13:33 -
[3] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
Trollceptors are only an issue if the space is vacant - active areas can just undock almost any single ship to just sit at zero.
To just sit at zero and do..what? Sit there with a 20/80M link fitted just to borrow a little time and wait for the interceptor's support fleet to pass by and shoot him down, while the interceptor is still pretty much untouchable at 100km@5000m/s ? (OR also play that interceptor game resulting in a stalemate) I'm with the voices asking to limit those links to battleship or at least battlecruiser sized ships. (Black Ops could increase in application value that way, too) So suddenly THEY have a support fleet closer than you do...in your home system that your trying to defend during your primetime? You don't deserve your sov.
THEY only need ONE such fleet, because they can freely pick from the pool of X contesting ships OR completely ignore them and be happy with RFing 100-X structures.
The defending fleet(s) would have to be on red alert for ALL their link-contesting ships at the same time and make sure they arrive in time to prevent the loss - which in turn leads to the stalemate situation of having to use equally fast cep's for contesting the links.
The initiative is completely with the aggressor in this scenario. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:18:59 -
[4] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Eli Apol wrote:
Trollceptors are only an issue if the space is vacant - active areas can just undock almost any single ship to just sit at zero.
To just sit at zero and do..what? Sit there with a 20/80M link fitted just to borrow a little time and wait for the interceptor's support fleet to pass by and shoot him down, while the interceptor is still pretty much untouchable at 100km@5000m/s ? (OR also play that interceptor game resulting in a stalemate) I'm with the voices asking to limit those links to battleship or at least battlecruiser sized ships. (Black Ops could increase in application value that way, too) So suddenly THEY have a support fleet closer than you do...in your home system that your trying to defend during your primetime? You don't deserve your sov. THEY only need ONE such fleet, because they can freely pick from the pool of X contesting ships OR completely ignore them and be happy with RFing 100-X structures. The defending fleet(s) would have to be on red alert for ALL their link-contesting ships at the same time and make sure they arrive in time to prevent the loss - which in turn leads to the stalemate situation of having to use equally fast cep's for contesting the links. The initiative is completely with the aggressor in this scenario. Yes. And completely no. If you are having to bring your forces in from outside, as a remote owner absolutely yes. If you are as the design intends living in the system, then one really does not have an issue here. The advantage lies with active engaged players occupying and defending their home. THAT is the whole point.
We're talking about defending every single target versus a contestant-removal fleet of easily 40+ people.
Just how many players do you expect to live from the revenue of a single system?
The minimum competitive force would IMO consist of everyone living in that whole constellation - which would then again face the problem of defensive points being spread over that constellation's systems *3 structures each (*30! command nodes in case of RF timer)
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:13:18 -
[5] - Quote
CCP_Fozzie, what i'd really like to know is the concept of acceptable group size this is aimed at for people to hold sov.
From the parameters given, the goal seems to be for sov holding alliances to control at a minimum a complete constellation and be able to frequently ship replacement sov structures into their territory. What's the minimum number of prime-time-active players you'd estimate necessary for that? 50? 100? 200?
Knowing the ballpark of player numbers you're aiming at would make it much easier to give constructive input. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:26:40 -
[6] - Quote
Varg Krugar wrote:
On that note, I'm slightly surprised that the Entosis Link does not require some sort of Fuel? Was that thrown out because of the possible runaway nature of capture events or to lower the bar for entry into "casual" Sov games even further?
Nice idea, I wonder if noone came up with that before or if it was rejected.
A fuel requirement would also make stalemate situations less ignore-worthy and alleviate the interceptor concerns somewhat. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:05:37 -
[7] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote:
I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.
They are. That's why the attacker is dead.
You seem to have a bit of difficulty grasping the difference between actual owners (i.e. the sovholding alliance) and the whole defending party (i.e. coalition, blues, whatever). |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 09:06:39 -
[8] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It's that, since it only takes two minutes to complete a reinforce
You seem to be under the impression, that it takes only one cycle to RF a structure. That's blatantly false.
It takes one cycle to START the capture process, after which you will have to keep it active to tick down the remaining capture time, which for a not yet entosed structure is 10*(1<=index modifier<=4).
The process is still trollish, but not to the extend you're making it. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 10:29:24 -
[9] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sullen Decimus wrote:B) make the entosis link unavailable to interceptors. frigates are still fine because warp bubbles will completely disrupt an attackers ability to literally troll an defender into submission. It is the warp bubble immunity and speed associated with them that is the main problem with the entosis link. Strongly disagree (in case you can't tell lol). This would enable gate camps and border control to keep empty systems protected behind an active defensive perimeter.
Creating defensive perimeters SHOULD be a valid strategy in any kind of defense.
There should be tools to circumvent those - and there ARE already in the whole covops/recon/blackops lineup.
It would sharpen the profile of those ships, not a bad thing actually. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:13:14 -
[10] - Quote
Besides the complaint that the new system will be open to trolls (which may or may not be adressed) the question still remains where the place of capitals or supers will be in the new meta.
So how about this:
Create a new structure, the Super-Hub. Only one can be set up per constellation.
- increases the effect of indices of selected iHubs in the constellation (owner could chose which to link)
- this might or might not include the entosys link multiplier effect for those iHubs
- can only be affected by entosys links of CAPITAL ships
ONLY if you want that to be even more of a conflict driver:
- also allow to select iHubs to decrease the effect for
P.S.
Also, the idea someone brought up of randomly distributing prime time windows over constellation was largely ignored. IMO that's a brilliant idea, since it (randomly) determines the value of a constellation for a lot of alliances - especially generating a different value for people from different timezones. |
|
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 12:28:10 -
[11] - Quote
Dark Spite wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Dark Spite wrote:Lavayar wrote:Looking at the proposed dynamic of structure destruction CCP should think about decreasing volume of iHUB and iHUB upgrades. I suppose it will be cargo capacity of Iteron Mark V. Some things shouldnt be too easy, that is one of them. Plus you would be insane/too spacerich/dumb if you loaded an Iteron Mark V with something that valuable. You would probably die on the Jita 4-4 undock. Obviously it would also have to be cheaper. Alternatively, the entosys link could only disable an iHub and you'd still have to shoot it, to destroy it. Would obviously mean there has to be an activity mode besides 'online' for iHubs, for this to work, mutually exclusive between all anchored and online iHubs in a system. Copied from the dev blog: In this Sovereignty update, the Entosis Link will be used for the following tasks (details later in this blog): Activating newly deployed Territorial Claim Units and Infrastructure Hubs Reinforcing Territorial Claim Units, Infrastructure Hubs and Outposts during their vulnerability periodDisabling and Enabling Station Services Capturing Command Nodes during Sovereignty capture events I take this to mean you would still have to shoot the structure after reinforcing it. Entosis link isnt a structure doomsday device.
You have to read further.
The command node capturing is, where TCU and iHUB explode, if the aggressor wins.
EDIT:
From the devblog: If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 13:53:10 -
[12] - Quote
Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Lavayar wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are people so scared of paper ships that cannot warp? Have you seen what ships like cerberus are capable of? These "trollceptors" are loot pinyatas, very little more. Assuming of course you live in your space. Yes. My cerberus alt is ready for this. In fact I'm just worrying that visual effect that shows which ship is applying Entosis Link is hard to notice in swarm of such bastards before it is to late.
So basically your answer to that 100M trollceptor is to bring a 200M+ cerberus ..unless of course, there are a few more names in local, which may or may not be a support fleet waiting for you just to do so? |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 14:07:24 -
[13] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Interceptors? Nothing but scouts with the ability to start the process of robbing systems from the lazy and absent.
Define "lazy and absent". Right now you need to bring a unbeatable fleet and commit it for a period of time to shoot structures.
With the new system, you only need the THREAT of an unbeatable fleet and commit a couple of ships that tap those same structures.
Seems a pretty onesided issue, IMO.
Of course the interceptor fleet is worthless without a sizeable backup fleet, which may just explain why the CFC is not too worried about said change. It's actually pretty generous of them to point out the flaws. |
|
|
| |
|