|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
68
   |
Posted - 2015.03.18 12:42:23 -
[1] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
To recap:
1st phase we made it impossible to project force.
2nd phase we have made it so any scrub corp or band of newbie alts can mess with sov.
IDK. More overhead to keep sovereignty during idle times because something can change in 5 hours. That should actually let biggest alliances stomp small fry out completely. Small alliances WILL have 5+ hour lulls in logons and cannot sustain extra mid-nite emergency logons long versus even a low scale assault. Given a 5+ hours dominance they will lose stations and never get them back because...
you only need to interrupt that station service takeover for a few minutes once every 5 hours. Given that small alliances by definition aren't normally fielding big forces, a very modest fleet to any of the big alliances today should be able to protect whole constellations as long as it keeps moving on to next alert. Only necessary during any lull in logon times though (e.g. 600-1100 EVE time). And after first attack you know which small fry alliances need ambushed and exterminated. Take their station and burn their POS and they will have hard time staging attacks nearby.
So biggest downside for large alliance is need for small scale semi combat-oriented fleets in off-peak hours and the loss of some idle time incomes. Moves by medium and larger alliances/coalitions will probably be much the same except there will be more system swapping on a daily/weekly basis.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 13:00:18 -
[2] - Quote
If you change the station services mechanics slightly you will reduce the ability of huge alliances to shuffle a single skirmish fleet around to protect 1+ constellations. Potentially bad if they are merely denying use and don't really use systems themselves much.
Specifically instead of defender being able to RESET 5 hour attack clock to ZERO with a mere few minutes of dominance over station service control...
how about setting back attack clock a much lesser amount?
Say 15 minutes plus however long defenders hold the advantage
(small bonus avoids strong defender intentionally pulsing effort several times so that they can leave for hours to some other duty before they need to return).
True this will also make it harder for small alliances to defend especially versus much larger alliances. But at least whoever has control will be an alliance with lots of people continuously in that system -- instead of only a roving and very briefly seen bigger hammer. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 13:12:53 -
[3] - Quote
Udonor wrote:If you change the station services mechanics slightly you will reduce the ability of huge alliances to shuffle a single skirmish fleet around to protect 1+ constellations. Potentially bad if they are merely denying use and don't really use systems themselves much.
Specifically instead of defender being able to RESET 5 hour attack clock to ZERO with a mere few minutes of dominance over station service control...
how about setting back attack clock a much lesser amount?
Say 15 minutes plus however long defenders hold the advantage
(small bonus avoids strong defender intentionally pulsing effort several times so that they can leave for hours to some other duty before they need to return).
True this will also make it harder for small alliances to defend especially versus much larger alliances. But at least whoever has control will be an alliance with lots of people continuously in that system -- instead of only a roving and very briefly seen bigger hammer.
Oh and the 5 hours must be accumulated within 8-12 hours ( or maybe only 3 hours within 8 hours) showing a clear margin of dominance without becoming a true marathon.
Maybe any failed attempt to get however many hours dominance over station service controls should result in defenders becoming immune to that alliance's attacks for the remainder of 24 hours (AI immune system effect). This depends on how much you want to favor small alliances retaining control since huge alliances are certainly much better able to sustain attacks around the clock for days. Maybe not the same level of attack but certainly enough to overwhelm small alliances as soon as they slack off peak efforts.
(Why do I care? ROFLAMO - station battles will be great opportunities for 3rd parties to ***** KMs. Free to snipe with little chance of any major diversion of forces unless one side is being totally crushed. Crushing forces are far less like to be present since most of the past advantages are negated. Crushing forces don't make takeover or defense go any faster. ) |
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 14:23:53 -
[4] - Quote
I do love the Summer 2015 proposal for TCU.
Simply the biggest most expensive and pointless secured can message ever!!
A challenge to fleet PVP and nothing more. Purity!
But in case they don't replace Mobile Depot and secured cans on those merits alone...
Here are some suggested enhancements that remain fairly pointless in terms of game advantage
(1) Adds Owning Alliance MOTD to Local channel (trash talk broadcast)
(a) Age secured options -- level of MOTD available varies by age
(b) Obscenity secured options -- MOTD available varies by user set options (default to safe) on religious, racial, and other
criteria for language filtering.
(2) As above except (meta 1?) forces zoom on TCU and billboard display of uploaded static graphic
(Empire-Interbus upload fee?)
(3) As above except (meta 3?) uploaded animated GIF displayed
(aurum fee per mega displayed?)
Game altering enhancement
(1) Allow TCU to mess with local chat due to alliance owning system long range transponder scanners etc
Only owning alliance has normal Local Chat info (including names in D Scan)
(a) Ultimate form (T3) -- everyone else permanently limited to text & time stamp (not even portraits i.e. "audio" only)
(b) Basic Headcount (T1) - portraits show but no names & no character info link & no pilot standing type flags
but otherwise "video-convo" works normally (portrait matches posted chat)
specifically you can see how many toons are in system & personal face recognition works
(c) WH to outsiders (T2) -- everyone else gets degraded WH experience
of waiting for people to speak so you can see even portrait.
Worse ID and character info link still suppressed after speaking
More a detriment to individual and poorly organized fleets in someone else's territory. Pretty easy to compensate with fleet comm and a few scouts watching hull type info. Although its harder to tell if ships under POS are vacant or occupied, that disadvantage is probably well countered by such tactics making more prize ships available when POS shields go down.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 14:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
TCU TCU
why buy the proposed Summer 2015 TCU?
What separates it from simple secured can or mobile depot message? Other than name on a map.
Would a simple audio alert message to owning members in system about hostiles or neutrals be worth something? Maybe for folk absorbed in some task or with too many open windows blocking chat or overview?
How about part of ISK value donated to charity?
Fitting scans of ship passing systems gates?
(Not terribly useful during mass invasion but versus small annoying roams?)
Rough cloaked ship location via vast array of system sensors and massive computer analysis of minute distortions?
(Slow scan version would put focus on AFK and fairly stationary spies & leave mostly unaffected all actively piloted, frequently moved ships. Well as long as they had enough safe points and didn't fall into fixed patterns. )
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 14:50:11 -
[6] - Quote
Nope I did not forget that the Summer 2015 proposal has fights over control points for the TCU. That I guess is different than Secure Can or Mobile Depot with message stating readiness to fight over use of a system (or just fight). But not much in a positive way.
I guess I am just remembering how FW got a boost once there were rewards for winning control of system. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 17:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
New sovereignty system for stations should include capture of player assets in hangars by new owners.
This will provide motivation for small alliances to try capturing stations which they will not be able to hold long once alliances large enough to apply pressure 24x7 go to work. Viking raid and pirate prize crews taking new fleet assets.
Stations are what allows sustained force projection into a system. Particularly for small alliances needing to recycle pilots quickly after they get killed. TCU are gonna just be Epeen flagpoles without any material effect except to allow skipping the intel process for determining who is most willing to fight in a given null system. Infrastructure hubs only matter if you do industry and that is directly proportionate to your confidence in holding a system.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 17:10:28 -
[8] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Just wish some of these Dev's would actually play EVE from a players perspective and witness the effects of the changes they have so far spewed into the game these past few months.
Truth is currently there is little incentive to play the game at all for players, the overall results of the travel Nerf has cut into players actual ability to complete fleets before having to log off on many occasions in hostile space the inevitable results of which when they do log back in again is loosing there ships and getting podded back, nice for the hostiles, not much incentive for the poor sod it happens to though, overall result is players get less content satisfaction, are less inclined to join fleets and are more inclined to simply give up playing EVE or at the very least leave Null Sec space.
Large areas of many Alliances Space are currently a deserted wasteland more utilized by neutrals than Alliance members who have little or no incentive to move from there current systems which have become heavily over populated and over farmed, results of that are there is less and less inclination to log in at all when you know that all the resources have been farmed out by players with more available game time than you have
The proposed Sov changes headline that they will provide additional content for players, but with no incentive to move why would they care to chase after silly little modules and timers when they can simply wait and then take back the lost systems at there leisure, The more likely outcome will be that they simply dock up and wait out the problem, then find they have less inclination to log in at all, result that leave the game or leave Null Sec
The effects of that silly blue timer icon have had far reaching and undesirable effects way beyond those required to simply Nerf power projection.
You can still get skirmish sized fleets up without much notice. Its just the grand blob fleets that can no longer be whistled up quickly with little or no warning. They can still be done but they will require significant planning and time to gather up. Which means that blob fleet movement leaves the tactical world for the truly strategic world where intelligence and spies and counter-intelligence misdirection can wreck havoc so easily. |
|
|
| |
|