| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
129
   |
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:40:37 -
[1] - Quote
"Prime time" thingy is a very bad game design. I hoped you would get rid of timezone warfare - instead, you only reinforced it.
And we see yet another shift in meta towards lighter ships. Capitals could be reprocessed altogether, and even battleships are worthless. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:41:59 -
[2] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.
Same for sentry carriers.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:46:02 -
[3] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Good job CCP, keep making ships worth 20+ bil isk and years of training even more useless.
I'm looking forward for the day when you say "no more structure grinding, now you can claim sov in a noobship!"
Just quoting my prophesy to say - I didnt mean it, it was sarcasm!
When you removed the ability to teleport capitals across the galaxy, we said - fine, strategic assets should move strategically slow. But now you are making those strategic assets strategically worthless. Capitals should be the key in sov warfare, not the bloody interceptors. Of course, there should be support, and they should move slow, etc. But you cannot just erase them from the equation. You cannot promise us that you'll find them another role. You will not. This is their role.
When Fozzie and later Rise started their "tiercide" initiative - everyone were happy. You were bringing back a lot of ships back to life. Now you're about to destroy the most iconic class of ships. Dont do it. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:47:08 -
[4] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Kyonko Nola wrote:I would strongly suggest you make the modules ship size specific. Otherwise there will be 100 inties circling around the objective all the time In which case you just plonk an atron at zero...sigh. I prefer my smartbombing Rokh, but yes. Same point
Why dont you use those against ~reavers~ ? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:02:55 -
[5] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:... the entire rationale behind the changes that need re-thinking.
I'm sorry to inform you - but everything is already set in stone. There will not be any re-thinking. All you can hope for - is tweaking the specifics like minutes of cycle and power grid requirements.
That's how agile development works. The sprints for conceptual designing has already run. The salaries were payed. Get your 3.0 version and enjoy it for the next 10 years. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:11:57 -
[6] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Kah'Les wrote:You know NA. is just renters right? Pretty much all of whom would have no reason to continue to be renters after this change.
Believe me, they will find a reason to pay the rent. It's just a state of mind, and you cant change it no matter what mechanics you will invent.
You know the dude who recently lost a Revenant? He is a renter in Impass.
He has ISK to set SBUs. He has DPS to grind through IHUB. Did he do it? No. Will he capture a system after the change goes live? No. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:17:01 -
[7] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:People rent because they don't have a supercap fleet to grind down structures or defend themselves when they get welped. The current sov mechanics vastly favors alliances with large capital fleets who are able to grind structures very quickly.
You dont need supercap ~fleet~. You only need 1 mothership.
You cannot ~welp~ it unless you're brain dead.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:24:41 -
[8] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote:I'm mostly happy with the underlying premise. There are a few things I think might need tweaking, but on the whole I'm positive to it. It's Jenn aSide who's saying there are deep, grievous flaws with it. I'm just wondering if these grievous flaws can be quantified, so I can see if I agree with Jenn or not.
Are you happy about the state of capital ships after the change? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:38:18 -
[9] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Sure, you only needed 1 supercap per structure grind. Each of which was a gigantic hotdrop magnet for anyone with a standing supercap fleet. And that still means you NEED 1 SUPERCAP PER STRUCTURE GRIND.
Of course you will be hotdropped in an empty system 30 jump away from civilization (which is a typical renter system).
Cool story bro. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
131
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:05:02 -
[10] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Sure, you only needed 1 supercap per structure grind. Each of which was a gigantic hotdrop magnet for anyone with a standing supercap fleet. And that still means you NEED 1 SUPERCAP PER STRUCTURE GRIND. Of course you will be hotdropped in an empty system 30 jump away from civilization (which is a typical renter system). Cool story bro. Have you seen the lengths people go to to get supercap kills? Are you shitting me? The only reason you'd NOT get hotdropped is if 1) they think it's a trap or 2) you managed perfect intel/opsec and no one knew it was going down.
facepalm.jpg
Explain me exactly how your super gets tackled and who will light a cyno IF THERE IS NO ONE IN LOCAL (except for your alts and corpmates)?
I dont have a super myself, but my corpmate and my ally mates did use supers ninja-style many times. They are still safe and sound.
Also, there is not such thing as "standing supercap fleet", FYI. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:13:28 -
[11] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Explain me exactly how your super gets tackled and who will light a cyno IF THERE IS NO ONE IN LOCAL (except for your alts and corpmates)?
I dont have a super myself, but my corpmate and my ally mates did use supers ninja-style many times. They are still safe and sound. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it was not safe. And it isn't. And it's definitely not something your average 1 year old 30-man or 50-man group can afford to try and do. And certainly not something a large alliance can allow their line members to try and do on a regular basis as part of their sov conflict with another large alliance.
Logging in you super is not safe too.
You have proved my point. Renters will always find reasons to pay rent. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:28:48 -
[12] - Quote
lilol' me wrote:would need to do it en masse, rather one by one because what will happen is the coalition will lhotdrop kick them out and then put someone back in, and tell them to behave or else. You know the usual stuff, if you don't do as we tell you we will destroy you trick, which usually works for the weak. The threat is usually enough to keep people on side.
Exactly!
CEO of nullbear corp: Guys, today we capture the system we live in. Jump in your T1 cruisers and let's roll!
nullbears: Oh noes! They will hotdrop us! They have standing jabber fleet! The resistance is futile... We better go kill some rats to be able to pay our rent. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:39:13 -
[13] - Quote
Logan Revelore wrote:I have no idea about sov and null, haven't really involved myself in the game much yet. But to me it seems capital ships will find themselves without a role. Also, it seems to easy too reinforce structures.
And the prime time is not a clever feature. Remove it completely.
Logan Revelore wrote:Another note.
This whole proposed system smells and reeks of artifical systems for the sole reason of "game design", with few ties to lore or any ingame sensibilities.
Implementing some abstract dominion based gameplay 'cause "reasons" doesn't really suit EVE imo.
I like this man. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:06:35 -
[14] - Quote
At least we agree on "prime time".
As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:22:23 -
[15] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced."
It doesnt work like this. Let me explain.
Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B".
Weaponized boredom, as thay called it.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:33:21 -
[16] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:At least we agree on "prime time".
As for me, I'd just add strontium bays for every sov structure and call it a day. But then you have the counterpart to "weaponized boredom," which is forcing someone to log in and fleet up at 3am their time.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. With strontium, attacker at least has some influence on exit timer. You can either reinforce it unusually early and get a timer in 01am instead of 03am. Or you can kite the timer to get it in the evening instead of at downtime. Both of this tricks work in POS warfare, and work more or less tolerable. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:40:33 -
[17] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Zip Slings wrote:In defense of primetime: It ties SOV to fights very clearly. It says "We're on at this time and we either undock or get our **** reinforced." It doesnt work like this. Let me explain. Party "A" is holding sov, party "B" wants to take it. "B" moves to a staging system near region "R". "A" creates a dummy alliance, puts all sov in region "R" into this dummy and sets its prime to the weakest time zone of "B". Weaponized boredom, as thay called it. Then party "B" has their off-TZ guys (or mercenaries) come in and RF the whole region in a night because "A" is in bed. Then "B's" mercs' off TZ guys take the whole region uncontested because "A" were dumb enough to put their region in the hands of a dummy alliance with not enough people and not enough Sov lazers and in a ****** timezone for themselves. Counterplay.
You do realize that sov-holding alliance usually have more ISK than ~little guy~ to hire mercs? Maybe even accept them to the dummy alliance to woop sov lazers. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 12:05:35 -
[18] - Quote
As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them?
1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE.
2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright.
3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the "Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 13:57:49 -
[19] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:As the change decouples different sov structures form each other - why dont we have different capture mechanics for each of them? 1. I suggest the TCU should be captured in sort of a style used currently. Plant SBUs, wait 3 hours, then reinforce TCU in shield, then in armor, etc. A lot of people love blob warfare. And it's a selling point of EVE. 2. IHUBs can be captured with Entosis Link, alright. 3. Stations - let's be creative here. Do you remember the " Null Deal"? One of its points was to install NPC stations everywhere. What if instead, I could dock at sov stations? Let's say the alliance could anchor a structure called "auxiliary docking service" which costs like ~100 mil ISK and has ~1 mil EHP. As long as my alliance has auxiliary docking service near a station - I can dock in it. Of course, sov owner can dock regardless, and their allies as well. Why would you make the ihub easier to capture than the TCU when it is the far more valuable and difficult to replace structure?
I just want to see diversity. I want to see place for capital fights in new sov warfare.
Swap construction costs and freighter requirements, whatever. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 21:02:12 -
[20] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Opponents are very rarely beaten physically - i.e. to the point where they have no more ships to fly or territory to contest. ...most will give up or failure cascade long before that point.
Dont you think that this point makes the whole sov revamp if not useless, but at least very dubious? The main goal was, and I quote: "Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved" The experience shows - sov defenders dont want good fights. They want sov at all costs. And that means they will take any opportunity to ruin the game of their opponents. Attackers of course will return the favor.
So if the whole premise is wrong - then what the hell are we discussing? |
| |
|