|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
44
   |
Posted - 2015.03.04 23:19:33 -
[1] - Quote
Some good ideas there CCP. The proposed capture mechanics should make for much more interesting tactical and strategic gameplay. Also I really like the way you have tied it to constellations, that is a really nice idea.
The main issue I would raise is with the prime time mechanic. It is a blanket approach, and instead of adding more strategic and tactical options it does the opposite.
An alternative would be a to require the structure to need to be resupplied and maintained at which time it would become vulnerable. This could be then set individually for each structure at a time chosen by the alliance.
The changes look promising though and should definitely make things a lot more interesting by allowing some smaller players into the sov warfare game. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 23:19:08 -
[2] - Quote
Glad to hear that CCP are tackling the prime time mechanic, as that is the one which initially stuck out as being a little out of place compared to the rest of the good changes.
Why not look at a system of maintenance cycles. After a set number of days the structure could open up their defences for repair and resupply over a much wider time period than the currently proposed 4 hours. So for instance every 10 days the structure would be vulnerable for a 24 hours time period, after which it would then be safe again for the next 10 days. After all I can imagine having to play this mini game for 4 hours every day could become tedious, and making the structure vulnerable for a whole day will give attackers more tactical possibilities in their timing of an attack, rather than just a small 4 hour window.
Also alliance member could speed up this window perhaps by using logistic ships and by transporting fuel/supplies in such a way as strontium is loaded into a POS. This would be an option for smaller alliances to close the vulnerability window although would be difficult for a large alliance to manage a logistic effort across their entire expanse. This would not be required, but would just speed up the process by a factor of 2 or 3 for example.
So in essence I would suggest a system of larger vulnerability windows, although more time in between them, and perhaps add some active way in which defenders could defend their space rather than simply sitting around waiting for an attack.
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:20:37 -
[3] - Quote
xttz wrote:For those still concerned about the rigid use of 4-hour alliance prime times, please check out some proposed tweaks found here. I believe it would be in everyone's best interest if system vulnerability were linked to how often it were used, making it much easier to contest those that never see a soul. Of course this is also another reason to fix the current Industrial Index. Something is clearly wrong when the EVE map looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/n84nWAH.png
Mining needs to make more of an impact on that index, and ideally there should be more metrics that factor in too. Commonly touted ideas include:
- Production jobs
- Moon mining or reacting starbases
- POCO usage
- Research
That'd be interesting. I like the concept behind the mechanic, although it would be better if the prime time wasn't on a daily basis in the first place.
If you had a vulnerability period (can we call it vulnerability period because prime time sounds terrible) every couple of days then it would give players a chance to play other aspects of the game and enjoy the fact that they have managed to keep their space safe for the next couple of days. I don't think that making it happen on a daily basis would be conducive for good gameplay. I see Eve a long term strategic game at its core, and so a longer period between engagements would be more fitting with what most players would expect from a game like this.
Also I think CCP need to look at active defence that rewards players further for operating in their own space and putting in some effort to actively defend. So on top of the variable mechanic above, you could also reduce the vulnerability period further by doing activities such as supplying your structures with fuel such as strontium, and carrying out maintenance with hull repairing logistic ships.
On top of this I'd like to see some anchorable structures such as guns and defences, they could be limited by the PG and CPU of the structure they are anchored at, and also would be expensive and slow to construct and anchor so that they aren't easily replaceable should attackers destroy them. Allowing players to base build in some form or another is a good aspect of any strategy game.
So my overall suggestion would be to implement the variable mechanic mentioned above, along with spreading the vulnerability period so that it occurs between another variable safe period of around 5 to 10 days. This will stop things getting to boring and predictable. On top of this make the vulnerability period quite a bit longer, for instance 12 hours at a minimum which could be reduced by a factor of 2 if you are actively defending and making use of occupancy bonuses as described above. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 15:46:07 -
[4] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Please stop Kaarous!
*chuckles* Never going to happen |
|
|
| |
|