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) |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 05:08:57 -
[3961] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Go back a few pages. I have (I think) clearly shown arguments as to how these changes fall short of goals.
How is a constellation wide mini game in any way going to help a small entity capture or hold sov? You say by splitting the blob, I say it won't split the blob and will simply mean they send 5 blobs instead of 1.
The only counter to the blob is arranged X vs. X contests, which are antithetical to EVE's design.
The only available limiters, such as they are, are wormholes and acceleration gates. The latter only limits type, not number, and the mechanics of the former would be gamed six ways from Sunday.
What CCP is hoping to do is:
1) lower the bar enough that smaller groups can contest sov, knowing full well that all such systems will also make it easier for large groups to contest sov (EVE's design makes that inevitable), and;
2) try to spread any conflict out over multiple systems to prevent 10% Time Dilation, the lag monster, and full-on node crashes.
The first is merely meant to make it easier for anyone to grab a system whose local defenses they can meaningfully contest. It's not meant to do anything else, and quite honestly it can't do anything else. CFC will still be CFC; N3 will still be N3; and so on. If Goonswarm decides to throw their weight around by effectively acting like dozens or hundreds of small alliances, v0v. It's a sandbox. That's their decision. As one of them noted above, they're only going to listen to "daddy" anyway, not act according to any in-game carrots or sticks. And they're big and wealthy and well-organized enough to do that within any system CCP decides to roll out.
The second is why they're insisting on constellation-wide contests, instead of your (admittedly pretty) idea of multiple contest points in system. The problem isn't that there are 4000 people on one grid, it's that there are 4000 people on one node.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Pursche
ProLogics Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 05:51:31 -
[3962] - Quote
ok So you had about 3800 posts from pvpers here. Now you got one from a renter and industialist.
I live in 0.0 with a small corp. I pay my rent and have been doing so for the last three yers to different sov holders. I do not care who owns the systems as long as I can dock and sell everything I make out here. I do not care how they/you hold or take sov But I really dislikes when CCP is going to take my SBU- Bpo away and give me a few isk and then I need to go to the dreadfull Empire to get the new Entosis Bpo.
So wake up and just change my Bpo to the other one and let me do my Planetary interaction out here as I have done the last three years.
What I do like is that you open up the outposts for 48 hours. I can see my isk growing even bigger when we have the buy and buildrace before the final fight.
/Pursche
CEO
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6658
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 06:28:19 -
[3963] - Quote
Pursche wrote:ok So you had about 3800 posts from pvpers here. Now you got one from a renter and industialist. I live in 0.0 with a small corp. I pay my rent and have been doing so for the last three yers to different sov holders. I do not care who owns the systems as long as I can dock and sell everything I make out here. I do not care how they/you hold or take sov But I really dislikes when CCP is going to take my SBU- Bpo away and give me a few isk and then I need to go to the dreadfull Empire to get the new Entosis Bpo. So wake up and just change my Bpo to the other one and let me do my Planetary interaction out here as I have done the last three years. What I do like is that you open up the outposts for 48 hours. I can see my isk growing even bigger when we have the buy and buildrace before the final fight. Oooh northern associates.
I look forward to seeing you guys very soon...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Mona Lissa
Die Schar des Schwarzen Herzogs
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 07:18:29 -
[3964] - Quote
If the stations are each separated from the sovereignty, which still speaks against allowing multiple stations in a system ? Consequently, you should then allow building up multiple station in a 0.0 system.. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 10:00:02 -
[3965] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Pursche wrote:ok So you had about 3800 posts from pvpers here. Now you got one from a renter and industialist. I live in 0.0 with a small corp. I pay my rent and have been doing so for the last three yers to different sov holders. I do not care who owns the systems as long as I can dock and sell everything I make out here. I do not care how they/you hold or take sov But I really dislikes when CCP is going to take my SBU- Bpo away and give me a few isk and then I need to go to the dreadfull Empire to get the new Entosis Bpo. So wake up and just change my Bpo to the other one and let me do my Planetary interaction out here as I have done the last three years. What I do like is that you open up the outposts for 48 hours. I can see my isk growing even bigger when we have the buy and buildrace before the final fight. Oooh northern associates. I look forward to seeing you guys very soon... Our little corp is moving right now - Guess where to
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
891
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 10:11:21 -
[3966] - Quote
Mona Lissa wrote:If the stations are each separated from the sovereignty, which still speaks against allowing multiple stations in a system ? Consequently, you should then allow building up multiple station in a 0.0 system..
Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station? |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 12:42:23 -
[3967] - 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 -
[3968] - 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 -
[3969] - 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. ) |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 13:43:53 -
[3970] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Mona Lissa wrote:If the stations are each separated from the sovereignty, which still speaks against allowing multiple stations in a system ? Consequently, you should then allow building up multiple station in a 0.0 system.. Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station? With the relative ease with which stations can be lost, Why would anyone but the biggest groups want more than 1 station? I wouldn't expect to see anyone other than the biggest coalitions building outposts. The big groups are pretty much immune to loss with the new mini games as numbers will always win.
No individual alliance will build outposts. There is no value in them when they are so easily flipped and the whole aspect of attackers being able to live in the system/station with all the advantages of the sov holders only makes it less appealing to spend the isk building an outpost for anyone not aligned to one of the big coalitions.
As the coalitions settle on what sov they want to keep and what they can't be bothered with, we are likely to see a few outposts go up in desirable systems. Aside from that, unless the price of an outpost drops by about 80%, they won't get built. Risk vs Reward - Build an outpost, you take all the risk for little reward.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 14:23:53 -
[3971] - 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 -
[3972] - 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 -
[3973] - 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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6666
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 21:56:20 -
[3974] - Quote
Udonor wrote: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. But then we'd farm it (like FW is farmed) and nullsec is already just BURSTING AT THE SEAMS WITH RICHES
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
ckinoutdahoe
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 22:18:39 -
[3975] - Quote
I really wonder if CCP reads all of these posts or just does a glance over?
Do you as CCP understand the concequences of what you are thinking of implimenting?
Ok, my typing my not be great tonight but I want to place my responce.
Please read post 22 and 27 twice and come back here as most of what they have to say would be a reiteration in part.
Now then to the next stuff........
You are completely destroying the mining industry in high sec and further more mineral prices for the ore there will plummet.
People who mine with all of their accounts and pay for plex in this manner will be highly irate.
How about all of those to include myself who own one or a ton of super capital bpo's that have taken the time and isk to max out these massively expensive bpo's?
Further more you just killed a major arm of industry that buys high sec ore.
For the PvP members who have spent ten's billions or hundreds of billions for the SUPER toys and pay for in a lot of cases a special account for them since you can not dock these massive ships.
Now these Super toys are now basically space junk.
We as members of this great game have asked you in this massive forum posting to rethink what you are planning to do.
How about alliances that have spent 30 billion on making those stations and the tens of billions for each upgrade?
To be taken by noobs with a thing that can go on a sub cap....... are you for real???? seriously!!!!!!!
Make a Titan or Super put on that thing ............the eso what ever link. We want fights not lameness.
As far as Supers being a command ship???? really !!!!! 20ish bill for a hull plus billions more for high end mods.
***********************************************************************************************************************************
What would I consider to do in place of this?
Consider making eve 5x bigger on an outer ring of current null. Make the rats there as hard or harder than the sleepers for decent fight. You can then allocate moons in a fashion that is more or less equalized
Give us a damn challenge. We tire of the lameness that caters to the lame.
Before changes are made please fix index's, a promise you have made years ago......When is that happening? Make it so.
With the nerf on jump range you made it especially hard for those living in the far reaches of eve like the north east and south east. For those that control the inner fringe you will not get any or many that will have interest in the far end as you intended.
I for one hope that you consider all the information and take it to heart. |
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
406
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 23:30:01 -
[3976] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Answering these based on the blog and Fozzie's interview on the EveDownUnder radio show.
1. The command nodes are anomalies and will be found on the probe window, overview, and sensor overlay. They are immediately warpable to, you don't need to scan them down with probes.
2. If you are not contested, you will win the timer with 10 nodes. If contested, then the amount of nodes will be more based on equations and calculations they have not released, and that it'll be some sort of hidden points system. You won't know the exact number you will need to capture, but your progress on capturing will be visible in the system (kind of like the incursion progress bar, but it'll be in a sovereignty window and on the system info you see in upper left corner in every system).
3. No.
4. I could be misunderstanding this some, but it is my understanding that if you break target lock with the entosis link, you will still have to wait out the cycle before you can warp, receive reps, etc. Capture progress stops when you break target lock.
5. I don't know if the individual nodes have a visible timer
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 23:36:03 -
[3977] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station?
What if you don't have to? Instead of a flat 1000 points (per CCP Fozzie's example) change it to 1000 points x # of stations, and use the existing point/spawn system to get to the total. Once the victor has accumulated X thousand points, all the stations are saved.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
D'vorien
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 04:32:27 -
[3978] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Sadly, their new system is going to pretty-much forbid it. Unless they code it right (heh, CCP), and future-proof it for this eventuality (and since they specifically have said they are keeping one station per system, they probably aren't doing that) they probably can't have two stations in a single system because odds-are, the capture nodes wont be able to differentiate between which station they represent. Imagine if both stations are rf'ed at the same time, (something that is going to be more likely to occur than less, since if you can rf the first without interruption, why wouldn't you do the other as well) is it going to be possible to tell which node is for which station? What if you don't have to? Instead of a flat 1000 points (per CCP Fozzie's example) change it to 1000 points x # of stations, and use the existing point/spawn system to get to the total. Once the victor has accumulated X thousand points, all the stations are saved.
I don't see any technical reason they cannot have two stations in the same system. Every item in the game has a unique ID, and the control nodes will almost certainly reference that ID, and be entirely unambiguous.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/64-bits-should-be-enough-for-everybody/
Whether there is good gameplay sense to it, or if there needs to be changes made to an interface we don't have details for yet, I don't know. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
478
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:36:42 -
[3979] - Quote
Greygal wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:
- Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
- Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
- Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
- Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
- Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Answering these based on the blog and Fozzie's interview on the EveDownUnder radio show. 1. The command nodes are anomalies and will be found on the probe window, overview, and sensor overlay. They are immediately warpable to, you don't need to scan them down with probes. 2. If you are not contested, you will win the timer with 10 nodes. If contested, then the amount of nodes will be more based on equations and calculations they have not released, and that it'll be some sort of hidden points system. You won't know the exact number you will need to capture, but your progress on capturing will be visible in the system (kind of like the incursion progress bar, but it'll be in a sovereignty window and on the system info you see in upper left corner in every system). 3. No. 4. I could be misunderstanding this some, but it is my understanding that if you break target lock with the entosis link, you will still have to wait out the cycle before you can warp, receive reps, etc. Capture progress stops when you break target lock. 5. I don't know if the individual nodes have a visible timer
Thanks for the effort, still waiting for CCP answers. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 05:52:41 -
[3980] - Quote
There are several aspects in the proposal that could make taking and holding sov very interesting, which are currently geared to specifically suit "biggest group wins"
Quote: When a target structure does not have a current owner, every alliance represents their own GÇ£sideGÇ¥ and all characters are capable of making progress towards capturing it at the same rate. When a target Sovereignty structure has a current owner, the system recognizes two sides (the current owning alliance on one side and everyone else on the other). Enables large groups to easily overthrow a small group, where it should be; "Whether or not a structure has an owner, EACH ALLIANCE represents its own side." Owners Entosis links are 1 side, Each other Entosis link represents the alliance it belongs to For each alliance with an active entosis link, it creates a new capture whether the structure has an owner or not.. Automatically removes the ability of coalitions to use allies to take sov for each other directly. Allies can form skirmish fleets to keep others away from capture points but not directly participate in the capture using Entosis Links.
Quote: The result of all these design features is that the best method to exert control over a structure with the Entosis Link is to establish effective military control over the grid around the target structure. The result is; he who can bring the most Entosis links and biggest blob exerts control. Entosis links should be a minor but integral part of the capture process. If an Entosis link can be fit to anything, simply bringing more than your opponent can will win the day. Entosis Links are to be the defining aspect of taking and holding sov, the ability to use them and fitting requirements should be equal to their importance. Not just a throw away module that can be fit to anything. - - - - Suggestion; Fitting requirements the same as warfare links The attributes from the Bastion module, with the exception of weapons systems which are disabled while Entosis is active. So you have good tanking ability but no offensive capability while entosis links are active.
T1 Entosis - T1 Battle cruiser (4 min cycle time) & Carrier (+100% cycle time) T2 Entosis - Command Ship (2 min cycle time) & Super Carrier/Titan (+400% cycle time)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quote:To disable a station service, anyone other than the alliance that owns the station must apply an Entosis link directly to the targetable station service. The capture mechanic for station services is exactly the same as for any other structure, except that station services activate and deactivate in half the time that Sov structures reinforce or capture. A small gang of griefers comes through outside an alliances prime time, RF's station services easily, when there is few members on to defend their sov because the alliance is geared to protect its assets during the specified prime time not 12 hours later. That alliance now has an uphill battle to restore station services AND protect sov structures during the next prime time.
Quote:Although reinforcing of Sovereignty structures may only occur during the owning allianceGÇÖs prime time window, station services can be disabled at any time through use of the Entosis Link for between 5 and 20 minutes (depending on occupancy levels). Just plain silly. Removes the need to take sov, all you need do is force the sov holders out of the station. It also turns "prime time" into a major joke. Why spend the extra time RFing minor structures like the ihub and TCU when simply RFing station services will serve the same purpose and is not tied to the rest of the mini game mechanic? It can be done at any time by anyone. For your proposed mini game and prime time to be valid it needs to incorporate ALL of sov.
Quote: Stations will now have part of the Sovereignty upkeep cost that was previously attached to the TCU. Stations are to become part of the sov structure yet are not governed by the same game mechanics as the rest of sov?
You want sov battles to be held at specified times each day but don't include a mechanic that makes fighting for sov viable for anyone other than the biggest groups. Then to top it off you make one of the most valuable aspects of holding sov (the station) vulnerable in a way contrary to everything else about holding and taking sov.
I'm convinced this is just a bunch of employees throwing out ideas between deciding who gets the next round in. Then someone put it all together and said - Hey this will work, lets do it.
There is an opportunity here to make the whole sovereignty system mean something, PLEASE don't waste it.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
97
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 09:51:04 -
[3981] - Quote
Sgt Ocker
How thick are you?
Numbers SHOULD ALWAYS have a edge. If fleet 1 has 50 and fleet 2 has 75 and both in identical ships, skills and FC, the bigger should ALWAYS win. However the skills and tactiques will somewhat even the odds up.
atm. we are in a situation, that once the 500 or so big blob has arrived, the tactiques and skills dont matter if you are in the 100 fleet. You will loose. Now, lets take the new fountain war as an example. N3+BL are able to get maybe 500ish dudes to fleet and goons maybe 1k. Now, N3+BL have their 500 dudes in atleast 4 different fleets, where goons have their 1k in 4 different fleets. Banging head on on one grid the 500 men will loose. Now spilt the objectives up to 5 different systems and we have a totally different scenario all of sudden. N3 having 4 125 man fleets and goons 4 250 fleets in four different places. Even the odds are still 1:2 it's totally takeable to fight with 125 dudes vs 250 dudes. Especially when taking to concideration, that CFC superstar FC's wont be in all systems simultaneousily doing the fleets, where n3+bl have a way bigger FC pool.
And no, the Entosis link is as it's best, if it can be fitted on literally anything. Limiting it to warfare links is just an artificial border.
and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS! |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:21:56 -
[3982] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:Sgt Ocker
How thick are you?
Numbers SHOULD ALWAYS have a edge. If fleet 1 has 50 and fleet 2 has 75 and both in identical ships, skills and FC, the bigger should ALWAYS win. However the skills and tactiques will somewhat even the odds up.
atm. we are in a situation, that once the 500 or so big blob has arrived, the tactiques and skills dont matter if you are in the 100 fleet. You will loose. Now, lets take the new fountain war as an example. N3+BL are able to get maybe 500ish dudes to fleet and goons maybe 1k. Now, N3+BL have their 500 dudes in atleast 4 different fleets, where goons have their 1k in 4 different fleets. Banging head on on one grid the 500 men will loose. Now spilt the objectives up to 5 different systems and we have a totally different scenario all of sudden. N3 having 4 125 man fleets and goons 4 250 fleets in four different places. Even the odds are still 1:2 it's totally takeable to fight with 125 dudes vs 250 dudes. Especially when taking to concideration, that CFC superstar FC's wont be in all systems simultaneousily doing the fleets, where n3+bl have a way bigger FC pool.
And no, the Entosis link is as it's best, if it can be fitted on literally anything. Limiting it to warfare links is just an artificial border.
and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS!
Infact we need destroyable stations. If we don't want the freeport we need to destroy the own station by ourself.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:27:42 -
[3983] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:Sgt Ocker
How thick are you?
Numbers SHOULD ALWAYS have a edge. If fleet 1 has 50 and fleet 2 has 75 and both in identical ships, skills and FC, the bigger should ALWAYS win. However the skills and tactiques will somewhat even the odds up.
atm. we are in a situation, that once the 500 or so big blob has arrived, the tactiques and skills dont matter if you are in the 100 fleet. You will loose. Now, lets take the new fountain war as an example. N3+BL are able to get maybe 500ish dudes to fleet and goons maybe 1k. Now, N3+BL have their 500 dudes in atleast 4 different fleets, where goons have their 1k in 4 different fleets. Banging head on on one grid the 500 men will loose. Now spilt the objectives up to 5 different systems and we have a totally different scenario all of sudden. N3 having 4 125 man fleets and goons 4 250 fleets in four different places. Even the odds are still 1:2 it's totally takeable to fight with 125 dudes vs 250 dudes. Especially when taking to concideration, that CFC superstar FC's wont be in all systems simultaneousily doing the fleets, where n3+bl have a way bigger FC pool.
And no, the Entosis link is as it's best, if it can be fitted on literally anything. Limiting it to warfare links is just an artificial border.
and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS! Name calling? Seems you ran out of any decent argument and had to resort to childish behaviour. Trying to compare what is happening today in nul to how the new system is likely to play out, is like trying to compare it to how it was 10 years ago. To be honest, BL found a lightly defended section of space controlled by an alliance that has enough internal problems to sink the titanic and decided to capitalize by invading. More power to them, that is what sov wars should be, not a series of mini games.
Yes larger numbers should always win but your analogy is far from what i am talking about.. Again you skimmed and responded to what you thought I wrote and missed the point completely. (You seem to be good at doing that) My proposal removes, to a point the ability of a coalition to just steamroll a smaller alliance. It makes the Entosis link a command module, as that is what it will be (the most powerful command module in the game). The criteria for its use should be meaningful. Not some throw away module on a throw away ship.
Your in a 700 man alliance, who do you think the targets will be for the mega coalitions, with thousands of bored members, when these changes go live? Coalitions like Goons/CFC, BL/N3 or an alliance like TRI?
CCP has an opportunity here to make a difference to how large groups interact with others. If your too thick to understand what I am trying to convey, then maybe it is better CCP don't bother listening to players and these feedback threads stay simple lip service.
If you believe the scenario you painted of BL/N3 vs CFC you are deluded. What makes you think the CFC is only going to field 4 X 250 man fleets? BL/N3 aren't stupid and isn't going to go on the offensive until they have the numbers. Or more likely, they just won't fight each other at all on any large enough scale to risk losing anything worthwhile.
And if you honestly believe the Entosis link should be allowed to be the ultimate troll module and introduced as it is proposed, then i would start packing for your alliances move back to lowsec.
Destructible stations and ease of proposed RF mechanic, which would lead to destruction - You would soon end up with only the biggest groups owning stations and everyone else living in pos's or npc nul. Loads more undesirable sov systems sounds like just the ticket to get smaller groups into nul. Does your alliance have 80 to 100 bil laying around to replace a station when you lose it? The way the mechanic is proposed, no-one has to take your sov, just camp your station and keep it RF'd. Make them destructible and you can keep your sov on the backside of nul, you just won't have a station to live in. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
Yes I am aware TRI is a small griefing alliance and the module as it is may suit your play style well. Until it is used against you that is, then you simply have everything to lose.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
889
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:47:51 -
[3984] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Ugly Eric wrote: and ps. Please CCP give us destructable stations. Really badly needed. We are almost having a station on half of the null systems already. Most of whitch are totally unused or used by few lads building something there. DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS!
Infact we need destroyable stations. If we don't want the freeport we need to destroy the own station by ourself.
Destructible stations will be the final nail in the coffin for sovereign space outside of the largest blobs.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
55
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 11:58:38 -
[3985] - Quote
The real sov system: The owner of a system is the corp that has the most activity and pays the ccp tax.
Advantages: This system is easy to understand and easy to modify. This will move many highsec corp's into null. Even more if you push the low systems. Provide a way for weekend and part time player to live in null. Remove the need of 1000+ battles (including supercapitals). Remove renting fee's. Remove the 'blue donut'. Bring back industry to null (because of more customers). The larger group will win only if they intend to live in the target systems. Bring thousands of possible targets into null. Make eve attractive for new and newborn player. They won't hear 'don't go to null' all the time if they ask in helpchat.
Disadvantages: Remove the need of 1000+ battles (including supercapitals).
Btw. converting every sov null into npc null would be by far better than this sov phase 2.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
516
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 14:19:14 -
[3986] - Quote
Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch. |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 17:24:41 -
[3987] - Quote
xttz wrote:Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch. Good old Fozzie - Breaking Eve 1 patch at a time.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
889
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 18:27:55 -
[3988] - Quote
xttz wrote:Some updates on null-sec from Fozzie's fanfest presentation:
- Volume of ihubs and upgrades will be dramatically reduced, with most fitting into a DST (although strategic upgrades will be 200k)
- Structures can be launched from Fleet Hangars (yay DSTs)
- There will be blueprints for ihub upgrades, allowing them to be built in null-sec
- New null-sec only ores to produce a better balance of minerals
- The military index will decay faster, and the Industry index will decay much more slowly.
All these are changes are due in the April 28 patch.
Thank you for posting some updates.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2133
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 19:32:10 -
[3989] - Quote
anyone have a link to the video? |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 19:54:28 -
[3990] - Quote
Rowells wrote:anyone have a link to the video?
http://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/EVE%20Online
there you will find it
and it seems that ccp really needs this sh... sov system for further development.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |