Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
151
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:13 -
[301] - Quote
Just from the first glance: With Tidi we are talking about 4-5 hours per commandnode for an attacker, while the defenders have way less plus the advantage of being able to avoid the enemy fleet via titan- and jumpbridge. Just keep throwing suicidesquads at the attacker to keep the Tidi up.
Also this system favors alliances over both corps and coalitions. While now a defensivefleet consisting of 5 different alliances is viable after these changes you could just target the one sovholding alliance and then they can-Št use capture anything. It will probably kill coalitions but not because they split into smaller groups but because f.e. the entire CFC could just join GSF. Just for safety and sharing of the defensive workload. |
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:29 -
[302] - Quote
Chal0ner wrote:More guerilla warfare is good on the other hand. (As long as they stay the **** out of Delve ) PIZZA is gonna come back and take Delve with interceptors and AFK cloaking, with this new system they literally could.
|
Pie Napple
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:40 -
[303] - Quote
I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.
For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).
I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:42:43 -
[304] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
They know about this
Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid? |
Total Newbie
Deadly Shadow Clan Executive Outcomes
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:43:03 -
[305] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Sounds awesome +1
If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.
If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to react to.
Not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily.
Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:43:25 -
[306] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:we have to create a strategic mining division to protect important systems are you ******* kidding me
nullsec mining has been broken for ages, go look at the price of mega and zyd and then think about why on earth mining should play a role here I'm sure your AFK-tars will be able to kill enough rats to make up for your lack of miners. that's not possible under this system which is why its bad
once mildex is 5 no amount of anything you do that is "occupying" your space besides mining will help |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
168
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:43:39 -
[307] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:I support this.
you want to be on csm cause you felt hats are more important
I don't support you or this sov change.
|
Tung Yoggi
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:44:50 -
[308] - Quote
Good stuff, now make sov holding actually fun and useful to have through the use of new and interesting mechanics. |
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:45:08 -
[309] - Quote
Total Newbie wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Sounds awesome +1
If you hold too much space you'll be spending your whole primetime fighting off little bands all over the place annoying you with a quick Entosis link to test out your localised defences.
If you 're actually using the space then you should have a defensive fleet within range to quickly react. If not then you've now got a timer to react to.
Not sure if 4hrs is long enough for the primetime, 6-8hrs should still be coverable by most alliances and allows multi TZ cooperation more easily. Can't wait to see how the little guy is going to even get to his space when the power blocs mass in all the 0.0 ingress points.
wormholes ? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:45:12 -
[310] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote: Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
they certainly aren't posting in here supporting it which says something |
|
iP0D
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:45:21 -
[311] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
They know about this Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
The only real functions of the CSM these days are to buffer community responses so there's no more summers of rage, to streamline feedback on what devs pick up up from player ideas and to endorse what comes out of CCP in exchange for some minor tidbits of niche concepts which CCP would have done anyway.
|
Hendrink Collie
Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:47:55 -
[312] - Quote
As as member of a mid-sized sov holding alliance that actually use their space, I'm generally ok with the changes. Entities that dont use space shouldn't be able to hold it, and the space should be easier to take. So yeah, this is good news. Also loving the usability of small roaming gangs to disrupt enemy functions, and if they are lazy, threaten their sov holdings.
Only gripe from me is that there should be at least some more benefit in strongly holding a system. But overall, not bad. Could be a lot worse. |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
200
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:48:01 -
[313] - Quote
Meh. Not what I had hoped. I had hoped for my activity based and less pointless modules and minigames. Also, 4 hour window gives major bonuses to large coalitions which can span all timezones and makes it nigh impossible for people with lives and work schedules.
However, I am pretty stokked about the activity in a system making it harder to take......except that yall gave essentially infinitely more power to AFK campers. Not the ones which actually attack people and things, but the ones who login a DT and dont' log off until the server kicks them off the next day. The entire time the character does nothing.
CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.
CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
|
Olya Tsarev
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:49:57 -
[314] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Proton Stars wrote: Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
they certainly aren't posting in here supporting it which says something
Or, and this may be a more sensible thing based in reality and not overwrought hyperbole, they have other things happening in their life that prevent them from posting on a forum about a change in an internet spaceship game that isn't really as important as their TPS report. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3173
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:19 -
[315] - Quote
Two questions: 1) I did not see how the tug-of-war actually works. You gave one example of what happens if only one side shows up (10 captures and you win). What is required to win when there are two sides fighting? When there are several sides fighting? Just what is the tug-of war mechanic?
2) "Anyone is free to deploy a TCU". OK, if 5 alliances all drop a TCU right at the moment the old one explodes, who gets the system? The fastest fingers? The alliance with the best internet connection to the servers?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:22 -
[316] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:Meh. Not what I had hoped. I had hoped for my activity based and less pointless modules and minigames. Also, 4 hour window gives major bonuses to large coalitions which can span all timezones and makes it nigh impossible for people with lives and work schedules.
did you miss that non alliance members can't actually defend, other than killing attacker ? |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
262
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:24 -
[317] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Also this system favors alliances over both corps and coalitions. While now a defensivefleet consisting of 5 different alliances is viable after these changes you could just target the one sovholding alliance and then they can-Št use capture anything. It will probably kill coalitions but not because they split into smaller groups but because f.e. the entire CFC could just join GSF. Just for safety and sharing of the defensive workload.
The idea that people with disparate identities, goals, and histories will smash together their alliances at the level that current blue coalitions exist today is invalid. It's why shifting the focus back to alliance level control is key to curbing bloc creep. People happily and willingly blue up to any and all coalitions on a moment's notice because there is really no disadvantage. You don't give up your identity, your command/control structure, or put your alliance in ANY kind of risk. And yet you get huge advantages because the existing mechanics fundamentally reward large blue coalition structure grinding fleets (EDIT: or more accurately, rewards supercap blob deterrents to large structure grinding fleets).
By refocusing this mechanic to alliance level control ONLY and removing the benefit of belonging to a blue coalition, suddenly there is much less benefit to hitching your wagon to a large blue group. More importantly, the idea that the disparate alliances of, say, CFC, would all suddenly join GSF alliance to consolidate is insane. There are many and varied reasons why those alliances aren't part of GSF already, and forcing them to actually put on the GSF tag if they want to benefit GSF sov is going to be a HUGE negative pressure on growing bloc sizes. A lot of people in blue coalitions don't actually like each other very much and only the overwhelming advantages to structure grinding (or deterrent to such) are sufficient to get them to willingly identify with a coalition; force them to adopt an actual alliance mantle while removing the scale of the benefit and rivalries will flare up. |
Masumi Vega
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:27 -
[318] - Quote
why do they keep breaking this game, catering to the instant gratification crowd. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
169
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:50:57 -
[319] - Quote
CCP in all their might.. still never even mentions on how they will deal with AFK CLOAKY CAMPING in null sec
as I previously mentioned "we'll all end up AFK CLOAKING left and right"
therefore with this plan.
A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets
this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay
thanks for the direction to another game and company ill spend with them instead of you ccp..
congrats on losing money
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:22 -
[320] - Quote
Proton Stars wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Proton Stars wrote:To the CSM. Did you really endorse this?
They know about this Sure, but did they as our elected representatives stand up and say yes this is great, or did they try to punch Fozzie in the face for being so stupid?
Probably the first option, because even though this has some concerning parts (i.e. primetime), it's way the **** better than the system we have now. |
|
suicide
The Exit Plan Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:23 -
[321] - Quote
I like the idea of primetime in concept as it allows a group of pilots who play during a certain time a window where they can manage their time and play maybe 7-11pm. It will keep people engaged.
I love the fact that things are changing, and the changes seem interesting. If CCP commits to continuous review and balance and changes going forward then I think it is a good start. There are some parts which may prove to alienate certain TZs inside of alliances but the only way to see is to play out the changes.
Now can we start distributing some carrots that make 0.0 more liveable, AKA player stations, alliance income, higher player density, DUST / legion / Valkerie kickbacks, mining, industry, multiple stations per system, etc?
Never stop releasing. |
Maya Cinderfort
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:39 -
[322] - Quote
Nyan Lafisques wrote:
That single guy won't do **** if you have any defensive bonus. He won't show up for the timer, and if you can't kill a single guy out of your thousand+ alliance in your prime time than I don't know what to say...
if i haven't read it wrong the node event still spawns end needs to be done in order to secure you space, ok they'll only take 20-30 mins to do so, what if you ahve to do 30-40 of them.
& yeah he will show up for the timer as he roams our systems for 6-8 hours a day. & yes we are a small alliance/coalition & we live surrounded by reds so they also have a place to dock.
|
Tia Aves
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:44 -
[323] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:
As an upside, you can check the map for areas where the locals are likely to be ready to defend their territory at your scheduled roaming hour.
Essentially what I thought. Unless sov was monopolised by a certain TZ (unlikely to be possible with the new system) there should always be targets in your TZ. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
262
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:52:40 -
[324] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets
this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay
Which will lead to sov being grabbed by people who are NOT terrified of being in space while AFK cloaky campers sit in local. Evolution will fix this problem for us.
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:52:49 -
[325] - Quote
The system is surprisingly good overall, but I see one critical problem: the price of Entosis links are low enough to allow trolling. I mean you park a throwaway ship next to the structure or command node and go AFK. If no one responds, you forced the owners into a command node whack-a-mole or took their home. If someone shows up, you lost a worthless ship.
We know that jump beacon gankers can kill capitals in the enemy staging system with 200+ in local, because everyone minds his own business. The VFK beacon was infamous for it. The same thing will happen here: a single attacker can take the IHUB from 200+ "defenders" as no one will interrupt his gameplay for a 30M kill report. So an FC must sit 4 hours every day on defense duty, grabbing players into the extremely boring job of "do N jumps because the station there is pinged, just to pop a single T1 cruiser. Now do N jump back, because the IHUB is on fire".
The problem is the extreme difference of risk on the sides: if the "attack" succeeds, the defender loses his home. If the "attack" fails, the attacker loses a T1 cruiser.
This can be fixed by increasing the price of the Entosis link enough to make Entosis kill reports a prized goal of PvP-ers. Like 500M, so defending home would be a wanted PvP event instead of a chore no one wants.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
654
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:53:21 -
[326] - Quote
JohnMonty wrote:"Defenders will also often enjoy the benefits of jump bridges,"
Best line in the whole thing lol
I very much like the proposal, but yea jump bridges won't be that much help with fatigue... just have to plan your use of them well I suppose.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Elona Solette
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:54:08 -
[327] - Quote
Pie Napple wrote:I see a problem with with the primetime thing as there is no actual way to make real coalitions in game.
For alliances with mixed timezones, like brave collective, there is no way of splitting up into timezones and splitting up the sovereignty. If the split would happen, nothing in the game ties the coalition together. It would not be one brave any more, it would be multiple. It would all have to be handled by standings. No common chat channels (has to be created and managed manually).
I think they should change sov warfare to be done on a corporation level, or add the ability for us to create actual coalitions.
This is explicitly designed to break up coalitions not encourage them. |
Mekenioc
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:54:21 -
[328] - Quote
Oh goody, my available gameplay just went to 0 if im not im my alliances "prime time" |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:55:45 -
[329] - Quote
Despite it taking longer, I'm not a fan of a capital ship using that new module. |
MiliasColds
The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:56:02 -
[330] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP in all their might.. still never even mentions on how they will deal with AFK CLOAKY CAMPING in null sec
as I previously mentioned "we'll all end up AFK CLOAKING left and right"
therefore with this plan.
A- Cloaky Camper begins camping a system.. dropping its indexes allowing for easy take over with frigate fleets
this is what CCP wants and calls it active gameplay
thanks for the direction to another game and company ill spend with them instead of you ccp..
congrats on losing money
i agree cloak invulnerability needs tweaks, do keep in mind they the target is june, and it is march, so there are plenty of opportunities to adjust cloaks and even capitals a bit before then |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 136 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |