|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1354
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:02:47 -
[1] - Quote
Initial thought on this:
* Mining providing defensive bonuses is probably not going to be used in any significant capacity while nullsec mining is in such a hilariously bad place. I mean, check out this mining profitability chart: http://eve-industry.org/mining/ . No one in their right mind is going to call CTA RED PEN MINING OPS to buttress their sov.
Gonna need to let it sink in some more before I think of anything else, I think.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1354
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:31:23 -
[2] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:claw, 10mn mwd, snakes, 249km mod.
20k m/s. good luck keeping up or applying webs long enough with a cruiser gang I would like to see this fit, especially one that is A) cap stable and 2) can lock that far.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:42:33 -
[3] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Shouldn't Starbase deployments, or at least their active industry related arrays, impact the Industrial index? That's a huge component of production presence, probably far exceeding even mining. I like this suggestion quite a lot. Allow manufacturing in both outposts and pos, and reactor arrays to affect industrial index.
e: research as well
You can use system cost indices to roughly measure the efficacy of manufacturing/research, and have active POS moongoo reactors ping the industrial index as well during their hourly simulation events.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:46:57 -
[4] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Am I wrong to believe that the new system involves a lot less destruction? In the old system - apart from stations, sov structures were being shot at and destroyed, which provided an engine for the eve economy. In the new system, basically you flash a light at a sov structure and it flips back and forth in a glorified game of tag, no destruction required. As a result, have we just lost a significant driver of the eve economy? TCUs and IHUBs are blown to smithereens once an attacker successfully contests their sov game. This is especially important for IHUBs, which are freighter sized.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:53:14 -
[5] - Quote
MajorScrewup wrote:There should be ways to make these indices go down. If nobody uses the space then there should be deterioration to a system where after a few weeks if becomes neutral space .
There are ways to build them up from zero to five for the defenders, which is good and shows that a system is in use by the residents, but the attackers can only keep the level stable by killing everyone there , there should be a means to lower it; either by attacking structures, killing npcs, or by forcing the residents to move somewhere else where lack of activity makes the indices deteriorate. For military and industrial index, this already occurs. Industrial index in particular is notoriously hard to maintain.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 18:54:27 -
[6] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Bubble immune 2-second align 250km locking 10mn MWD interceptors really are the bane of this new sov model. I still want to see a fit for this that actually works. Feel free to discount tank for it, too.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1356
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 19:00:51 -
[7] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Well taking advice from the null posters who did everything within their power to troll up the Hyperion thread for wormhole space, and like them I know less than jack**** about your area of space, I must be uniquely qualified to pontificate about null changes.
Seems like an excellent series of changes.
Is it too early to utter the immortal cry "HTFU"? Too soon? There is no need to be upset.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1360
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:02:06 -
[8] - Quote
Regarding the entosis links, I feel like 250km range for T2 is a little too powerful to fit on frigates and destroyers. Perhaps the T1 version should have frigate-level fitting requirements, but the T2 version require cruiser-or-above grid to fit? This would allay a lot of the concerns regarding 250km hyenas / 150km crows.
And unlike Mr. "10MN 250KM CLAW" here, I have fits for this: http://i.imgur.com/XEfdxHT.jpg <-- the hyena http://i.imgur.com/W8O1LIM.jpg <-- the crow
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:41:24 -
[9] - Quote
Honestly, trying to predict fits before we know the fitting requirements of the entosis module is pretty fruitless. It may very well be that the T2 entosis link has fitting that precludes interceptors, or cap use that precludes interceptors (a bit of a stretch given the 2m cycle time but hey), or some other chicanery.
If it's fittable to interceptors, though, boy howdy that is gonna be fun.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:56:36 -
[10] - Quote
I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no fear, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:58:17 -
[11] - Quote
CCP -- I would strongly advise you to prioritize the Entosis Link's precise fitting ahead of all other discussion topics. So much of the conversation relies on which ships can field the Sov Laser. Not making a swift, firm decision on this matter threatens to make any other possible feedback meaningless.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:00:44 -
[12] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:I must admit to being moderately amused by the folks who think that activating a defensive entosis link somehow prevents the interceptor from causing further harm.
Sure, the interceptor at that particular node gets blocked, but he is free to turn around, burn off grid, then travel to a system 10 jumps away in the time it takes you to disengage your link.
It's not about the individual sov structure or command node; it's about the ability for the interceptor to, when flown by a moderately competent pilot, to choose to disengage at will should the situation become untenable, and to begin poking another sov structure outside of the reach of any ship but another interceptor.
They feel no pity, no remorse, and no pain, and cannot be stopped. Even the Terminator wasn't so lucky. Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. Most individual regions consist of systems covering more than ten jumps.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1375
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:08:45 -
[13] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Not every alliance is sprawled across such large areas that an interceptor jumping 10 systems away is still their problem. Most individual regions consist of systems covering more than ten jumps. And not all alliances control a whole region Confirmed -- for example, Goonswarm Federation does not control the whole of Deklein.
My point yet remains.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1375
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:12:10 -
[14] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote: Confirmed -- for example, Goonswarm Federation does not control the whole of Deklein.
My point yet remains.
It remains yet it's invalidated by the fact that some alliances have fewer than 10 systems under their control, let alone 10 in a row that would necessitate them worrying about an interceptor taking ten jumps in anything other than a circular fashion. The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1379
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:17:26 -
[15] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes I think alliances at all scales matter, not just the bloated ones that will have to shrink to prevent said interceptor being an issue ten jumps away because of the dilution of their defensive forces with the current status quo. This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1380
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:25:55 -
[16] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:The fact that you think alliances at that scale of sov havership are the only valid ones is immaterial to the greater discussion.
e: fixing quotes I think alliances at all scales matter, not just the bloated ones that will have to shrink to prevent said interceptor being an issue ten jumps away because of the dilution of their defensive forces with the current status quo. This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios. You are wrong. 20 or 50 interceptors can be countered easily by any med sized alliance. Obviously 300 interceptors or 1K cannot by med sized alliance like 300 or 1K BS or 50 super. But the numbers you put in a system are not in another one. That's the point. Countered, temporarily, but not caught. Not stopped. The sov system as proposed works only if the attacking force can conceivably be destroyed and deterred.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1380
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:29:09 -
[17] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Querns wrote:This is a very strange conclusion to draw from the current discussion. The current discussion is about the interceptor's inability to be countered in a meaningful fashion, not the size of an empire. The size of an empire is immaterial to this as well; the interceptor simply cannot be caught in any but the most contrived scenarios. It's very pertinent when you say that a skirmisher might come and harass someone and then be able to be ten jumps away before they can react - when a small alliance doesn't care about that skirmisher as soon as it leaves their area of operations. It's no longer their problem. They defended their space and the threat fled. Now a large alliance which is sprawled across the map may well still have this skirmisher within their borders and necessitate them chasing it around and around for the whole of their primetime because they don't have enough standing members to deal with it where it comes to rest each time. Is that clearer for you? Don't focus so hard on the "ten jumps" number. Trying to paint a narrow vignette and extrapolate it to the whole of the experience of Eve is facile. The number was chosen to describe the speed and disengagement prowess of the interceptor, not the exact path in which it needs travel.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1380
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:32:53 -
[18] - Quote
Believe it or not, when I describe the interceptor's potential prowess in the new system, I'm not using it as a shield to protect I and mine's way of life. Believe me when I say that Goonswarm Federation's ability to optimize any game system precludes any fantasies you might have about our future. After all, they do listen to me. I am careful to avoid this, as it's way too easy to tear down and be used against me.
Think of what I say in more apolitical terms. Having an agenda simply isn't necessary when my point doesn't require it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1381
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:37:29 -
[19] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this. You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special. We haven't done it because it's too much work in Dominion sov, and doing so would place us at considerable risk due to our Cold War metaphor supercaps being out of position to counter any threats.
Having a conquering force consist of a scant 250 maledictions, loosed upon a region like a plague of locusts, removes this risk completely. At that rate, I can personally finance the destruction of all conquerable nullsec easily, and I'm one of the poorest members of the Goonswarm Federation Economic Cabal.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1381
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:49:44 -
[20] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Querns wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote: We would burn null to the ground.
You've been trying to burn null for years. It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen after this. You're acting like the kid who feels like a big man because his mommy said he's special. We haven't done it because it's too much work in Dominion sov, and doing so would place us at considerable risk due to our Cold War metaphor supercaps being out of position to counter any threats. Having a conquering force consist of a scant 250 maledictions, loosed upon a region like a plague of locusts, removes this risk completely. At that rate, I can personally finance the destruction of all conquerable nullsec easily, and I'm one of the poorest members of the Goonswarm Federation Economic Cabal. And you think you're the only person/alliance with that kind of money? That's cute Get off your high horse mate. Before you fall and hurt yourself. Considering that I described myself as among the poorest of the Cabal, I fail to see where I asserted any of that.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1381
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:37:08 -
[21] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mostlyharmlesss wrote:If the changes goes through like they are now, I'm unironically going to take a 200 man interceptor fleet to Provi and reinforce the entire region in 4 hours. You know, I remember this kind of rhetoric before. When the mobile siphon units were announced Goons swarmed (no pun intented) the thread with comments about how their siphons would blot out the sun, how they would siphon every moon in EVE. And it never happened. Ask the occupants of the south about being siphoned.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1389
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:48:48 -
[22] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Just to point out:
Again, yes, the CFC will reinforce everything in sight if given the chance. The reason for this is that there is no reason, **** you. As it stands, this system will give them the chance.
Accept that as a baseline. This man understands Goonswarm Federation better than CCP does.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:54:49 -
[23] - Quote
Freedom Nadd wrote:How to fix Nullsec, the 15 point plan.
1. Reduce Highsec incursion spawns to 2.
2. Increase Sansha HP in incursions by 50%.
3. Reduce income curve for HQ's to 20 million at 50 ships.
4. Increase Level 4 mission standing requirement to 7.0, Increase Level 5 mission requirement to 9.0.
5. Add dynamic rat spawning to Level 3 and higher missions, increase mission rat numbers depending on number of ships in fleet (1 ship - normal spawn, 2 ships +75% spawns, 3 ships +200% spawns, 4 ships +350% spawns).
6. Remove State standings for mission agents.
7. Increase high sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 8 hours. Increase low sec ice anomaly respawn timer to 6 hours.
8. Remove any ore above Scordite from high sec.
9. Allow Rorqual class ships in High sec.
10. Remove ALL usable ore from starter systems and 1.0 space.
11. Increase NPC Corp tax to 20%.
12. Increase high sec manufacturing tax by 25%.
13. Decrease high sec refine rate by 25% and increase refine tax by 10%.
14. Remove all exploration combat sites from high sec.
15. Reduce high sec exploration sites by 50%.
Of course, will never happen. These are fair, reasoned changes.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:35:40 -
[24] - Quote
Xpaulusx wrote:I can see new subscriptions soaring under these conditions............Oh wait. Confirming that new players subscribe to run L4 missions and highsec incursions.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
|