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) |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:32:43 -
[691] - Quote
CCP
Re: 96 Hour Timer
So when this is launched and no one has a Preferred Timer window set - will it still take 96 Hours to set before anything can start happening?
Or will everyone get a default Preferred Time at launch, until it is changed manually and then +96hrs?
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
Freyr Padac
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:33:44 -
[692] - Quote
Prime time timer, WTF that is only going to cause an alliance to focus on a single TZ
Entosis Link, If it is to exist it needs to be like a siege module and be unable to move as well or this is going to be crazy with ceptors |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4201
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:33:55 -
[693] - Quote
Sarel Hendar wrote:1.) I'd recommend restrictions on entosis module so that it can't be fitted into frigate- or destroyer-class hulls. Otherwise we'll have troll-fitted T3 Destroyers or Interceptors that'll be MWD-orbitting at 200 kilometers and nearly impossible to stop or hit. 2.) Idea: In a twist to command nodes, you could have in addition to normal ones "variant" command nodes that have to be probed out and capturing which is worth slightly more than "regular" command nodes (eg. something like 1.1-1.3 "regular" ones). Nothing overwhelming, just some edge to the side willing/able to have a combat prober in fleet... 3.) Timezone segmentation could be problematic. Needs thinking about. 4.) ECM interactions with entosis will need thinking about. 200-Falcon troll fleets aren't fun for anyone. 5.) Capital- and Supercapital roles will need thinking about.
1.) An interceptor doesn't have the lock range to "lock" a station while orbiting at 200 km's. As a matter of fact, most "long range" kiting concepts can be countered by damps. The Arazu / Lachesis easily have lock ranges out to 200 km's, and when properly rigged, their damps will occasionally hit a target at that range. Break their lock, and they can't entosis anymore.
2.) I like this idea.
3.) I concur. I think some TZ segmentation is necessary, but I find the window a bit on the small side. 6 hours seems more reasonable than 4 hours. I can't decide if this will hurt or help AU TZ groups.
4.) ECM Troll fleets are easy to beat. They do poor dps and hard counters.
5.) I'm not worried about supercapitals, as applying an entosis is akin to sieging, which is a fairly dangerous thing for them to do.
|
MIss Sideways
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:34:34 -
[694] - Quote
wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!
all jokes aside...
make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...
Change it so that folks have to siege for this... |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3942
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:36:21 -
[695] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.
The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
Please keep it constructive and on topic people!
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Nof Nof
Incertae Sedis
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:37:44 -
[696] - Quote
Flo Skyler wrote:I am all for changing sov mechanics, but im not sure if this is a good way of doing it.
Sov holders will have to defend their space from any pvp entity looking for a "gud fight", even if said entity have no interest whatsoever in actually holding sov. This is great for ppl who wants to pvp, they can go out and pick a fight and after they have seen what is arrayed against them, decide whether or not to engage and even pick the fights in their favor to some degree since their main objective is the fight, not getting sov. This could become a real strain on sov holders, constantly having to defend their territory against pilots with no real interest in holding sov. I fail to see what advantages there are to holding sov that can make up for having to form up every day for defensive timers or to prevent said timers from happening in the first place.
CCP want more players in null sec. I fail to see how these sov changes will improve that. In fact i think it will have quite the opposite effect. When you make it easier to take sov you also make it harder for sov holders to create the kind of stable environment needed for carebears to live in. Yes it will be easier for smaller entities to get a foothold in null, but it will be just as easy for them to loose that again and tbh i dont think the reward for holding sov is big enough for ppl to invest their time and assets into holding sov when they can loose it again on a whim.
My guess is, that the big coalitions will not be able to hold on to as much sov as they currently do. I think they will focus on some core regions and maybe we will see a more segregated sov map where alliances are more focused in a single region rather than multiple like we see today. I fear that the best sov will be held by the coalitions and the rest will become a barren wasteland where sov changes hands on a daily basis or not at all and chaos rules.
To sum up. Changes are great for pvp (or at least the offensive side). Not so great for the ppl that actually holds sov and try to make a living there.
You are forgetting about the covert ops camping thst exists nowaday. Only difference is you only have a 4 hour window to worry about. Team up with some pvp people or focus on defense fleets etc. Cause yes there will be people griefing and there will be people wanting good fights and you know what? Pvp players have had to sit there while indy null bears go and hide in their stations anytime 1 neut is in local and talk smack from station. Explain to me why there is anything wrong with holding your own destiny you shouldn't have human concord to hold your hand.
|
Agent Known
Night Theifs DamnedNation
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:37:58 -
[697] - Quote
Evil BeeHatch wrote:Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode.
Maybe so...but CCP could always make it require too much PG to be fittable on interceptors that try to also fit an oversized MWD. Same with the Svipul. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
580
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:39:04 -
[698] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes. CCP Fozzie wrote:Only one may be fitted per ship. CCP Fozzie wrote: Capital Ships would have restrictions for using these modules, most likely in the form of a role bonus that increases the cycle time by 400% (this means a 10 minute cycle time for a T2 Entosis Link on a capital ship).
Various players wrote:Don't allow Entosis Link on interceptors, covert ops, .... I think that these sorts of specific limitations on modules rarely make much sense, and only serve to limit player creativity when fitting ships.
Why not just create multiple sizes of the Entosis Link, incl. a capital-sized version, and set the module stats accordingly, to limit what players can do with one? There can also be mass penalties, speed penalties, sig radius penalties, etc. to make it somewhat unattractive to fit to every ship in the fleet, or to fit multiple links on a single ship.
For example, to make remote assist still possible, but much less viable, the Entosis Link could have a significant armor/shield resist penalty. And, for capital ships, the fitting requirement and/or cap usage could be very large, making it problematical to also fit a tank or any significant DPS.
BTW - warping, docking, and jumping should just break the cycle. Running away should always be an option in the game. |
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
998
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:40:13 -
[699] - Quote
MIss Sideways wrote:wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!
all jokes aside...
make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...
Change it so that folks have to siege for this...
A 20 hour daily invulnerability window isn't hard enough?
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1442
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:40:26 -
[700] - Quote
Nullbears are mad. Good.
The Tears Must Flow
|
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
129
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:40:37 -
[701] - 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. |
Nalha Saldana
Shattered Void Test Alliance Please Ignore
878
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:41:48 -
[702] - Quote
After reading and discussing a lot there are 2 things that needs to be addressed:
1. Prime time needs to be chosen on a constellation or system level so that alliances can mix what time zones they have and designate them to live in different areas but still be able to help each other.
2. For these changes to really have a proper effect we need a economic overhaul, this isn't something that can be fixed overnight but don't expect too much serious business fighting to go on before that.
Oh and while your fixing economy, fix sec status, 80% of systems are useless for pve/mining. |
MajorScrewup
Thundercats The Initiative.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:42:10 -
[703] - Quote
If CCP really want to get more smaller alliances into null sec then they need to make a better system than this one, but if this is what we are going to get then:
The best idea so far to combat 'prime time setting' in this thread is the idea to have core systems that are used a lot have the small 4 hour window where they can be attacked, with this degrading to a 24 hour window of attack in systems that are not used.
Occupancy could be increased via npc kills, pilots in system, ores mined, manufacturing jobs in system, moon mining, ships killed, etc.
This will force the defenders to use all the systems they own, or lose some to smaller alliances looking to make a foothold into null sec. Systems with good occupancy would keep this attribute for a certain amount of time before degrading. Of course a carrot would be needed for people to leave the better systems to use these poorer systems, in the form of better bounties from npcs, better mining yield, etc.
Eventually defenders that have to much space will have to yield systems that they cannot keep occupancy up in, or recruit more people into their alliances to help. Hopefully this will cause more PvP, as there are actual people to fight in regions rather than the emptiness that there is now; as you will have enemies close by to fight and other entities will move into the region looking for easy targets as the area is now full.
Systems with lots of activity having a 4 hour window, moving down to 24hours for a never used system. A system never used for any activities should probably degrade to unclaimed after 3 weeks.
Entosis module at 250km is easily countered by many other ways to bring the attacker in closer, so I have no problem with that.
Supercaps are back to what they should be used for, killing other capitals. The underlying problem of supercaps has never been what they can do.
Still hoping there is more to be revealed as this still feels very limited for the wait. |
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:36 -
[704] - Quote
Agent Known wrote:Evil BeeHatch wrote:Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode. Maybe so...but CCP could always make it require too much PG to be fittable on interceptors that try to also fit an oversized MWD. Same with the Svipul.
don't let the defenders know about the Maulus! shhhh |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
307
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:39 -
[705] - Quote
Murkelost wrote:This is a very bad idea since it forces alliances to focus to a single TZ. And the entosis link is OP, since like a ceptor can fly around ihub's at ludicrous per sec and take the ihub. Entosis should be forced into siege mode as it go active in it's task.
I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno. |
Javani
Low-Sec Survival Ltd.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:43:56 -
[706] - Quote
I'm not sure if i hate it or it will be okey. but a few thought's:
Freeport Good idea, but to prevent ******* docking games, set an redock timer to 10 mintues or so. RP-> because the management in the station is totally in mess.
Prime Timezone As mentitentioned before, multi time zone entities have realy problems to provide defensiv to smaller groups of other timezones. Also, attacking an AU TZ is really hard for an EU timezone entity, except you have jobless people or students.
Boni from active living Yeah, this part i really like. But whats about to engage the timezone problem to make an not use system an huge vulnerable and for every avtivity in the last day/week the timer shrinks to the primetime?
Feelings about the new system It's feels a little bit too gamey and not like war. I don't see any resonable connection between spawning points to capture in the constilation and saving the sov structure. but i think any good RP background could fix this. But it will be gamey...
The Link - With small ships(frigs upto cruiser), you could orbit upto 200km away with enough sbo's but after 1 ecm hit your progess is gone? -> kitsune wars / damp wars - With medium ships(bc to bs) you will warp to zero to the bacon and try to defend your position. don't forgett your scorpoins and damps for getting rid of enemy links that will orbit over 150+ | beaware of lock breaking bombs...
Capitals hmmm carrier alt for resuppling small ships, but what will you do with dreads and larger ships?
|
Zaporozh
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:44:15 -
[707] - Quote
Love most of these changes however this Prime Time Timer needs to go away. Its going to make Multi TZ alliance be useless since the timers will only come out at one time. Entosis link needs to be a siege No reps, No moving, No ability to triage or siege. As well as make it very easy to see which ship is running the mod on the structure maybe even have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
342
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:46:04 -
[708] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Nullbears are mad. Good.
I don't know about that; it looks like a lot of them are mad because these changes will change the approach to managing and contesting sovereignty, but do not necessarily solve the existing problems with the sovereignty system. |
Bullock Atram
5th Degree Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:46:46 -
[709] - Quote
Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless
|
Catherine Laartii
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
485
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:07 -
[710] - Quote
Can we PLEASE get a dev or someone to give out solid stats for the fitting costs of Entosis links? If it's too big to fit on a frigate that would be AMAZING since it would ensure that inties would be barred from using them, and that cruiser to battleship-sized ships would be the ones capping systems. While I'm reticent about growing the cruiser meta in the game any more than it is currently, you need to ensure that cheap throwaway sh*t frigs or inties don't become the bearers for such an important module as the Entosis link.
Personally, I'd like to see battlecruisers be the only ones that can field them. They're slow enough to be manageable by opposing frigate gangs, and they're ideally adaptable to the new tech with their ability to fit command links. This plus the fact that they're less likely to be nickel-and-dimed like frigates and cruisers would make them excellent vessels for this new meta.
But for Bob's sake...please make sure that inties are unable to use these. The bubble immunity alone would bar anything else from being used in this new mechanic. |
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1111
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:28 -
[711] - Quote
On the docking games in a Freeport. Honestly I would charge a docking fee but keep the fee in escrow. So people get billed for docking (100,000 for a frigate, up to 10 million for a freighter/dread/carrier). Whoever wins over the Freeport in total, gets that escrow cash.
A little bit of a bonus incentive to claiming and winning the station. I'd give 5% of that escrow to the person who locks it down as a individual capture bonus, the other 95% to that persons corporation to do as sees fit.
Basically a capture corp could make billions by sniping the station and taking it's escrow. Basically if you have a person doing undock games, they pay for it. And then everybody pays for it to whoever claims the station.
Yaay!!!!
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1442
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:38 -
[712] - Quote
Bullock Atram wrote:Prime Time Timer is a bad idea Its going to make diverse TZ alliances to be pointless
You make that sound like it's a bad thing.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Jarn Skjoldr
Steelforge Heavy Industries Dream Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:48:58 -
[713] - Quote
OK look, CCP, I like where you tried to go with this, but there are some major problems you need to fix.
1) The 4 hour vulnerability window is way too short; doing what one of the other commenters suggested and turning it around into an 8 to 12 hour "safe" window would be a much better idea.
2) Instead of having *all* an alliance's timers set for a single window, why not allow different timers to be set depending on the region? With the jump fatigue mechanic now in place and jump clone timers at a minimum of 19 hours, alliances still wouldn't be able to jump back and forth across their space very easily and this might be a good way to allow different time zones to still participate if you decide to keep the 4 hour vulnerable idea. Have different time zones defending different regions.
3) The T2 Entosis link range is insane and the fact that ships can move while using one is even more so. The T2 Entosis link range should be brought down to double the T1 and both of them should immobilize the ship using it like a triage, siege, or bastion module does. I don't particularly like that it's a highslot either.
4) I've played FW heavily on another account and so I know firsthand how PvP anomalies can generate PvP. So while I like the idea of command nodes, I hate the fact that they're scattered across an entire constellation. My corp owns a single system, and that's all we want. We don't want to have to fly around an entire constellation to protect our single system. The best FW combat is always based on contesting of a single system in PvP anoms in that system, and nullsec command nodes should follow the same model. You say the goal of these changes is to allow smaller entities a shot at sov, but what you're really doing is telling us is that we either need to be big enough to take an entire constellation or we should just go home.
5) These sov changes make it a lot easier to lose your Sov without giving any matching value to owning sov. Like one of the other commenters said, make Sov indexes give bonuses to mining yields and rat bounties or something, anything, that adds more value to owning a crappy nullsec system over highsec missioning.
6) Sov warfare is a huge part of what makes capital ships useful. I'm really glad that you're trying to produce a sov model where owning capital ships isn't required, but eliminating their use entirely is a slap in the face to those of us who spent half a year training into them and billions of ISK buying them. They need to have some function. I'm not saying they should be an "I Win" button as they currently are, but there should be some advantage to having them vs not having them |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1164
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:49:08 -
[714] - Quote
Hugh Coloure wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Total Newbie wrote:Uh huh. Pretty graphs say whatever they want to say. Doesn't make them true. I live in null, and I just disagree there are more players here..... If there were, in fact, more players in null, road trips wouldn't be a necessity.
Anecdotal evidence versus actual statistical evidence...nice Also read the damn devblog, it explains why some areas of null have been quieter whilst there's been an overall increase across the whole game outside of your anecdotal situation. LinkPeople logging in is in a strong downward trend. The graphs you are pointing at lack a y-axis, they are impossible to interpret the scale of those changes without it.
Graph entitled "Eve Online AND DUST 514 Status Monitor".
And I don't suppose you realize that that huge downward motion just happens to coincide exactly with Fanfest 2014, when CCP basically announced that DUST was dead. What you are seeing in that graph is all the players that quit DUST.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Sieonigh
Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:49:11 -
[715] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:MIss Sideways wrote:wtf? change!!! noo!!! *rage*!!
all jokes aside...
make it harder for folks to capture if you want to implement this...
Change it so that folks have to siege for this... A 20 hour daily invulnerability window isn't hard enough?
only 4 hours vulnerable, even a filthy casual can maintain that |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
235
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:49:48 -
[716] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:I believe it does force you to be there till the cycle ends like a cyno.
But, based on what the devblog said, it doesn't force you to come to a stop, unlike a cyno, triage, or siege module. |
captain foivos
State War Academy Caldari State
264
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:50:22 -
[717] - Quote
Quote:Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
ItGÇÖs very important that active and prepared alliances be provided with the tools they need to defend their homes. Providing benefits for robust in-space activity has been one of the key drivers of many of the economic changes to Nullsec over the past few years, and those changes have been quite successful in shifting the focus of Nullsec economic activity from static assets to bottom-up gameplay. ItGÇÖs now time to begin linking this same bottom-up economic activity more strongly with the world of strategic Sovereignty warfare.
In the new Sovereignty, systems full of active occupants will be vastly easier to defend and control than abandoned ones, bustling empires with a variety of activities will be stronger than AFK ones, and disrupting your enemies everyday activities in their space will help you gain advantages both strategic and economic. More details on how we intend to begin achieving this goal will be discussed later in this blog.
This section of the blog does not actually exist. You may want to go back and, you know, make holding sov give you something. |
Capt Tenguru79
Mass Production
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:52:10 -
[718] - Quote
Entosis link needs to be like a dread in siege and have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS so that it is obvious who is doing it in a fleet fight. IMO |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3184
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:53:12 -
[719] - Quote
Evil BeeHatch wrote:Prime time timer: For that it forces alliances to focus to single tz. We need to make this go away.
How, while still having it fair to the defender?
Evil BeeHatch wrote:Entosis Link: This is OP as ****, A ceptor can fly around our Ihub at 20k per sec and take our IHUB So basicly say that the Entosis Link should be like a seige mode. You can stop that interceptor efforts by hitting the IHUB with your own Entosis link.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
94
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 21:54:07 -
[720] - Quote
Zaporozh wrote: Entosis link needs to be a siege No reps, No moving, No ability to triage or siege. As well as make it very easy to see which ship is running the mod on the structure maybe even have it yell in local the name of the person like the ESS.
"Activating an Entosis Link also causes ships to become extremely vulnerable for the duration of the moduleGÇÖs cycle: the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes."
I agree, though they already covered most of it. I think it should make the user EWAR-immune and lock them in place like siege/triage. Maybe even give them a local rep bonus like a siege module too just to make it interesting. |
|
|
|
|
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 |