| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4201
   |
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:21:40 -
[1] - Quote
Are the HP and Anchor/Online times for IHUBs and TCU's being adjusted? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4201
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:33:55 -
[2] - Quote
Sarel Hendar wrote:1.)  I'd recommend restrictions on entosis module so that it can't be fitted into frigate- or destroyer-class hulls. Otherwise we'll have troll-fitted T3 Destroyers or Interceptors that'll be MWD-orbitting at 200 kilometers and nearly impossible to stop or hit. 2.) Idea: In a twist to command nodes, you could have in addition to normal ones "variant" command nodes that have to be probed out and capturing which is worth slightly more than "regular" command nodes (eg. something like 1.1-1.3 "regular" ones). Nothing overwhelming, just some edge to the side willing/able to have a combat prober in fleet... 3.) Timezone segmentation could be problematic. Needs thinking about. 4.) ECM interactions with entosis will need thinking about. 200-Falcon troll fleets aren't fun for anyone. 5.) Capital- and Supercapital roles will need thinking about.
1.) An interceptor doesn't have the lock range to "lock" a station while orbiting at 200 km's. As a matter of fact, most "long range" kiting concepts can be countered by damps. The Arazu / Lachesis easily have lock ranges out to 200 km's, and when properly rigged, their damps will occasionally hit a target at that range. Break their lock, and they can't entosis anymore.
2.) I like this idea.
3.) I concur. I think some TZ segmentation is necessary, but I find the window a bit on the small side. 6 hours seems more reasonable than 4 hours. I can't decide if this will hurt or help AU TZ groups.
4.) ECM Troll fleets are easy to beat. They do poor dps and hard counters.
5.) I'm not worried about supercapitals, as applying an entosis is akin to sieging, which is a fairly dangerous thing for them to do.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4204
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:19:16 -
[3] - Quote
I like the idea mentioned earlier, where unused systems have a wider window of vulnerability.
A heavily utilized system has only a 4 hour window of vulnerability, whereas a completely unused system might have a 12 hour window instead. I think this might be important for cross timezone assaults!
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4207
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:15:50 -
[4] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Are the HP and Anchor/Online times for IHUBs and TCU's being adjusted?
There no HP any more mate, you don't shoot those things any more :D
I don't think you have it right Hairpins.
Once ONLINED you don't shoot these anymore. However, if you successfully win a contest over an enemy's TCU/IHUB, their TCU/IHUB EXPLODES. You then have to anchor and online your OWN TCU/IHUB.
In the current system:
It takes 1 Hour to anchor, and 1 Hour to ONLINE an IHUB.
It takes 5 Minutes to anchor, and 8 HOURS to ONLINE a TCU.
During these anchoring and online times, the structures are vulnerable to attack. However, they also have ~20m EHP and ~200m EHP for the TCU and IHUB, respectively.
I'm asking for clarification.... does it still take as long to anchor and online these? Does it still take as much firepower to destroy them? Are they vulnerable while anchoring and onlining (if not, there is a race to see who anchors the first IHUB/TCU once the old IHUB/TCU is destroyed).
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:21:59 -
[5] - Quote
Barbaydos wrote:instead of having the 4 hour window of doom that alliance can set themselves i have an idea so that more timezones can actually play the sov game.
in a target system you have 2 different types of anomalies we'll call them large and small for lack of a better name.
there are 2 large and 6 small anomalies.
within the anomaly there is a structure that you have to put your entosis link on, for small anoms it takes 5 mins to activate and 15 for the large anom.
to make a system vulnerable you have to activate 2 large or 6 small anoms or a combination of the 2 - total time wise it takes 30mins without interruption to make a system vulnerable.
the small anoms despawn every 3 hours and the large every 6 hours - this is to prevent people making bookmarks that would carry over for several days.
the idea of this is to 1) allow fighting for sov in all timezones 2) still allow small groups of players to attack sov
once a structure is reinforced then it comes out within that 4 hour primetime that is set by the alliance
i would also maybe insert a mechanic that allows the attacker to effect the timer for the structure once it is reinforced to make it better for the attacker.
I much prefer to have a larger window of vulnerability based on system activity:
A heavily used system should have a small (4hr) window of vulnerability.
An unused system should have a large (12hr) window of vulnerability. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now.
FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die.
FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:33:20 -
[7] - Quote
Tykonderoga wrote:The prime time idea is garbage. The module to reinforce structures will be abused by ceptor pilots with pirate implants or a bazzillion people in ceptors. Think CCP! I know that no one in the company actually plays the game anymore, but think!
Why is it that people think a fleet of ceptors is uncounterable? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:37:29 -
[8] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why not tie indexes to the vulnerability timer?
Higher indexes , shorter timer.
To benefit groups that really use their space.
If in 90% of your systems you have at least level 4 index .... you gain something more in terms of defensive measures.
Feel like I'm quoting myself:
Highly used system: 4 hr vulnerability window.
Unused system: 12 hr vulnerability window.
Please make this happen! It opens up the door for assault on a unused but claimed system by more timezones!
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4208
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 00:39:44 -
[9] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Brother Mercury wrote:This patch makes it nearly worthless (save for POS BASH) to log in supers or dreads. j
....
FYI: Supers can use gates now. FYI: Part of the new Sov System requires being able to move around. You can do this slowly in a heavy fleet (with capital support), or quickly in a more agile, but weaker fleet. Adapt or die. FYI: Supers were designed to be anti-capital ships, not I-win buttons against all fleets. Why would anyone use capitals after this patch i think is the real question.
BS gangs use Triage Carriers for support.
Enemy escalates with dreads to kill triage.
You re-escalate with supers to kill capitals...
Dreads will also be used to RF POS's.
There is a use, they just won't be used as much for capturing stations and destroying IHUBs. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4209
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:35:36 -
[10] - Quote
Gypsien Agittain wrote:Zip Slings wrote:To address what seem to be the most common complaints people are having...
1. "OMG Interceptors will just win forever and stuff!"
First, no interceptor can target out to 250km. Stop saying this nonsense. A single fleet of Rapid Light Caracals will deal with an Interceptor gang.
If you think anything can engage a ceptor gang, then you don't play the game or have a relevant cognitive disability.
Intercept gangs have counters, and aren't very good at holding the field They are great for hit and run, but that won't win a sov war.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4233
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:09:22 -
[11] - Quote
I've been thinking about these blitzing inty fleets. My first though was about all the tools at our disposal to counter such lol-fit ships, for which there are plenty. However, further pondering has brought to mine the underlying problem that is driving this ridiculous scenario:
It comes down to the battle of effort. Sov. war, over the years, has basically evolved into break-their-will campaigns, where you first exhaust your opponent's will to fight long before you successfully take their space. The problem with the proposed scenario isn't so much inty's RF'ing structures, but that the effort to reclaim those structures is pretty heavy.
We can prevent inties and dessies from fitting the entosis link, but we'll still have the same situation. It is very easy for an organization to segregate their fleet into many, many small parts that simultaneously attack the sov of many structures. While many of these individuals will be countered, many more will also succeed. This is true anytime you have an empire expanding more than a constellation. Every successfully RF'd structure then results in a not insignificant effort by the defenders to reclaim the system or lose it.
The disparity is in the effort to RF the structure vs the effort to reclaim it. That is really what needs to be balanced.
Truth be told, if no one shows up, I believe the structures should revert back to the original owners control naturally. Also, I feel like there needs to be an additional step (i.e. an investment in effort) before the attackers truly make sov vulnerable.
Focusing on link fit inties is really sidetracking us from the above discussion, which is something we should be having.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
4233
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:45:14 -
[12] - Quote
Devi Loches wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I've been thinking about these blitzing inty fleets. My first though was about all the tools at our disposal to counter such lol-fit ships, for which there are plenty. However, further pondering has brought to mine the underlying problem that is driving this ridiculous scenario:
It comes down to the battle of effort. Sov. war, over the years, has basically evolved into break-their-will campaigns, where you first exhaust your opponent's will to fight long before you successfully take their space. The problem with the proposed scenario isn't so much inty's RF'ing structures, but that the effort to reclaim those structures is pretty heavy.
We can prevent inties and dessies from fitting the entosis link, but we'll still have the same situation. It is very easy for an organization to segregate their fleet into many, many small parts that simultaneously attack the sov of many structures. While many of these individuals will be countered, many more will also succeed. This is true anytime you have an empire expanding more than a constellation. Every successfully RF'd structure then results in a not insignificant effort by the defenders to reclaim the system or lose it.
The disparity is in the effort to RF the structure vs the effort to reclaim it. That is really what needs to be balanced.
Truth be told, if no one shows up, I believe the structures should revert back to the original owners control naturally. Also, I feel like there needs to be an additional step (i.e. an investment in effort) before the attackers truly make sov vulnerable.
Focusing on link fit inties is really sidetracking us from the above discussion, which is something we should be having.
This is exactly it. The interceptor discussion is just one example of how the underlying issues can be abused. It's too easy for a roaming harassment fleet to inflict serious damage to a system, even one that's lived in.
It is easy to miss the forest, when people keep focusing on the trees. No one should be posting lol-interceptor fits, and should instead be posting the imbalance in the efforts between attacking sov and defending sov.
|
| |
|