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) |
Circumstantial Evidence
172
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:23:57 -
[1171] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging? |
Le Mittani
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:24:02 -
[1172] - Quote
Correction, it was actually in that thread on their theory crafting forums where they attempted to create a sa matra proof afk ratting fit. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1081
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:30:26 -
[1173] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging?
As a FC who leads fleet fights regularly I can promise you the Battleship is well under represented in null sec PVP. Shield BS even more so. My alliance are one of the few making a BS doctrine work and it's a razor tight line we walk to be able to use them.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:31:37 -
[1174] - Quote
Drechlas wrote: I couldn't agree more. We all know that CCP employs statisticians to run some numberporn for Eve Fanfest each year. So surely they must be aware that with statistics and graphs you can prove any point of view on the data. In the presented case the statistics were used to prove your own point instead of reality.
Look at CCP's chart http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png
Now look at a "fixed chart" where actual cruisers (i.e. HACs and T3s are stacked together) and you get something looking like this http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
Now imagine the Marauder and Black Ops parts stacked on top of the Battleship line if that makes you feel better. But when you do that, to be fair, you should stack HICs, Force Recons, Logi, and Combat recons on top of the already HUGE cruiser bar. Then you get an idea of why everyone laughed at CCP's graph. The cruiser class of ships is the only thing anyone uses in EVE, followed by frigates. Look at the graph. It's not an exaggeration. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:34:26 -
[1175] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:2. Battleship position on the graph: one can draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The graph headline was "graph of PVP damage by class" - that implied all PVP damage, everywhere. Therefore its legit to say the figure could be biased in favor of BS damage during SOV grinds, pos & poco bashes - everywhere. Rise's point is that the BS class is getting used and applying lots of damage during the graph period, but for many players, the way they are used (structure grinding), or the fact that their group does not use them or see them around for various reasons, is more important.
Manny is referring to this "fixed" chart http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png The graph released by CCP seperates HACs, Cruisers, and T3s. I think that's pretty clearly erroneous Ok, thanks - I think I get it. The "fixed" graph stacks all the more popular ships that can actually move, and shows they are all together doing about 5 times more damage than BS class, which has fewer ships in it. Perhaps CCP can be accused of a little bit of sweeping under the rug in plain sight, but I can ask questions about the stacked graph. (Though I'm very late to that party.) It demotes battleships to the second most popular size class by applied damage.... would any number of people complain if they were removed entirely? (Slight sarcasm there.) Is there a similar graph, from prior to the warp speed changes? What is a healthy metric for battleships? Doing maybe half of the combined damage of those three groups of cruiser size hulls - two of which can be set up to be... very damaging? It only demoted battleships to second because nobody bothered to show that even frigate hulls outdamage battleship hulls in terms of usage. Stack frigs, bombers, ceptors, and AFs too. Battleship hulls are a joke in EVE's meta right now. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
299
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:41:00 -
[1176] - Quote
YanniMorePlz wrote:Just a slight 'concern' that I felt might be worth pointing out. I will quote from the blog: Quote:The occupancy defense bonuses for all of these structures lock while they are reinforced and will not be affected by changes in indices over the two days of reinforcement. Much like defensive SBUing, I feel there is potential for a defender to use an alt/spy to intentionally reinforce in order to freeze the index of a system in order to retain it's defensive bonuses. One might do this if let's say, renters have recently fled the area, and the defender does not want to lose their bonuses while being unable or unwilling to invest time to grind them back up. A easy solution would be to have the index drop after the "lock" period from any inactivity that occurred during the lock. Just something worth bringing up, it's small and I don't think it impacts anything in a major way. Overall great blog! Unlike defensive SBU'ing you cant flip the switch, however, if someone takes advantage of the vulnerability. Once the RF timer ends the command nodes exist also outside the 4h time window, so someone would come in some low activity timezone and would just flip them in less than hour while the defender is sleeping.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:41:52 -
[1177] - Quote
Drechlas wrote:Why not make the vulnerability slot dependent on the size of the defending alliance? We want smaller parties to have a stake in null and doing their thing. To make the place more vibrant and bustling with activity. Smaller entities should have a smaller vulnerability slot than larger entities imo. That's exploitable. I can have the station etc held by an alliance with 10 people or less in it, which obviously isn't desirable.
Drechlas wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote: Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec. I just read this as nerf incursions and rightly so, CCP is always aiming for risk vs reward as such any high sec activity may not yield as much as a reward as the low or null sec variant of said activity. This can be dealt with by buffing something else, then increasing taxes for building stuff etc, for example.
Drechlas wrote:In order to pull this off, null sec will need a serious injection of industry minded people. Current high sec industrialists will need a good incentive to move to null and the main way to do it is by upholding the holy rule "Risk vs Reward" since producing and mining in high sec is relatively risk free, the yields should be lower than mining in low/null sec. I'm naming mining now but the same should apply over the complete industrial palette. This is definitely something which is required, and hopefully this'll be a part of phase 3 of the nullsec revamp. I'm not sure how they'll do it and not make hisec a content desert, but they'll still have to tackle it soon, and well.
However, I'm cautiously optimistic they'll actually do that, as long as they don't do too much of the following:
Manfred Sideous wrote: @CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details.
Agreed. I would be surprised if a lot of the "increased nullsec population" shown in the blogs wasn't also in part due to industrialists etc actually moving out to nullsec after phoebe made manufacturing not suck the fat one compared to hisec.
And the BS vs cruisers thing has been pointed out multiple times as a lie by statistics-massaging, where if you put up all the cruiser-sized hulls it would dwarf BS-sized hulls in usage (and I'm wondering how many of those hulls would be left if even hulls used while ratting were taken out of the equation). |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:41:59 -
[1178] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:@CCP an word of caution. I see CCP using metrics with a degree of ambiguity to re enforce a pre-conceived notion. This is called confirmation bias. A example of this was the recent blog over the Ishtar nerf. There was a graph showing all the ships and their usage and damage. In this graph it showed battleships in a great place. Not to overpowered but able to project decent damage their hull size and investment. In reality however this could not be further from truth. So please rethink some of these metrics with graphs because always the devil is in the details. Same for sentry carriers.
|
Callduron
Corporate Scum Brave Collective
616
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:47:29 -
[1179] - Quote
CCP Fozzie's latest dev blogs are epic attempts to address the problem of stagnation in nullsec, what Crowfall calls "the Uncle Bob issue."
"[By year 10] Bob is now an unassailable tyrant and anyone who even tries to challenge him is crushed instantly. Nobody's having fun, not even Uncle Bob. A strategy game inherently has to have the chance to restart."
Is Null Sec at the stage of "unassailable tyrants?"
I think so. It's true that people coming into null sec are not always crushed instantly but that's because the big boys allow them to come in then farm them for pvp. Space is now 2 dominant factions: the CFC and N3/PL. There's also the Russians - traditionally left to do their own thing - and independent entities permitted to exist for farming. Gevlon went as far as to describe BRAVE as renters who pay rent in ship losses rather than isk.
Renters dominate nullsec. Even if we don't consider alternate arrangements which are renter-like - paying rent in ship losses or paplinks - a quick look at Dotlan shows the absolute dominance of renters in nullsec. The biggest sov holder is N3's renter alliance, next is xDeathx's renter alliance gifted to them by PL, then 2 real player alliances then 5th is PL's renter alliance and 6th is the Goons' renter alliance. Even analysed by population, renters make up 4 of the 7 biggest alliances in the game.
Renting is emergent gameplay a system where players manage a conflict driven high reward space by avoiding conflict, paying stronger people to do the conflict for them. This will become more or less impossible under the new Sov system. Sov structures will be continually tested by anyone who can reach them. The role of wormholes in accessing remote parts of null is not insignificant post-Phoebe either.
I'm in favour of seeing a sharp decline in renting. I think it tends to create boring space, where people mine or multibox in safety and seclusion rarely seeing a hostile. As an FC I consider most such space not really worth attacking because they'll just pos up and it's not like we can do anything to threaten the sov. Interceptor gangs targeting inattentive ratters are the only effective counter-measure and that's gnat bites in the overall scheme of things.
But what will happen to an Eve where most null sec residents have decided not to pvp, just to grind their next super in safe zones?
Well there will be some quite sharp economic effects.
We will see more ship destruction, a lot of destruction of sov structures, people spending time fighting instead of ratting and mining and people hiding in poses or stations when they could have been ratting or mining.
This means the economy will see less isk and less ore as well as a marginal reduction in ESS-related loyalty points. It probably won't effect nullsec exploration much as that's fairly safe. We may see less moon goo production and reaction as people feel less safe about erecting moon miner POSes. We may see less PI production as people are forced out of their space.
A big decline in the production of isk would lead to less money chasing the same goods, ie inflation. So all goods will be likely to become more expensive and particularly nullsec ores and their derivatives like Megacyte.
Loyalty point items, exploration loot and wormhole-exclusive materials will likely become cheaper, the latter being particularly true in view of the upcoming rebalance of T3 strategic cruisers (likely to be a nerf).
Will Eve be a better game? I think so. Conflicts abounding more reward for the people who manage nullsec successfully.
Will the Uncle Bob problem be solved? That seems less clear. If a big boy comes to a small sov holder and says "give us 20 billion or we'll wreck you" they will be likely to be able to extort money. So it will still be like renting except without the flagging. There is an out though - if someone becomes sufficiently bitter they can drop sov then spend all their time making their oppressors lives hell from NPC space.
What may solve the Uncle Bob problem and what shouldn't be forgotten is that there is still the prospect of a whole new type of space coming when the massive player-made stargates project is finished. So someone feeling oppressed by CFC and N3/PL would be able to move to what is pretty much a whole other game zone and forget them. That will be the real test of the sov revamp - whether the sov fixes keep players wanting to stay under the yoke of the blue doughnut when a viable alternative opens up.
So here's my prediction: the sov changes will make for exciting times in the short term but will ultimately fail to shake up nullsec and as soon as a new zone opens up on the other side of the player made gates all the farmable people will emigrate leaving a bitter bitter core of veterans sitting in their supers blaming CCP.
Is anyone remembering Trammel?
(originally posted on Stabbed Up http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/nullsec-must-burn.html)
I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/
I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
|
Lickem Lolly
Achura Solutions
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:53:32 -
[1180] - Quote
Welcome to Griefing Online!
I've read the blog a few times and tried very hard to find something positive, but I just don't see it. As someone who has lived in nullsec in small and large alliances, I can tell you this will be horrible.
Major problems:
1) Griefers in interceptors will be pinging our SOV for giggles 24/7 2) Cloaky campers will be perma-camping to keep indexes low 3) Capitals have no purpose anymore. With no more long-term goals, why will people bother playing eve? 4) Prime Time is a horrible idea. If you are not in US or EU prime, you will never be able to join any fun sov battles. 5) As mentioned a few hundred times already, there are no benefits to holding sov, so you will see most of nullsec empty.
This new concept was created by someone who either does not play eve at all or someone who hates large alliances and coalitions. Sorry, but I have news for you... Your salary is paid by large alliances and coalitions. This is the purpose of nullsec. You are shooting yourself in the face if you ruin this.
Also, you are completely missing the real problem with Eve - Highsec. I also run a highsec recruiting corp and can tell you from years of experience, highsec is broken. Attracting and keeping new players is the real problem in eve. 90% of our new members quit in the first month, due to highsec ganking and extremely boring content.
Congratulations. You should update your CV asap... |
|
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:54:35 -
[1181] - Quote
as a wormholer, 2 words :
'accidental sov'
* grabs a popcorn making machine *
@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet
TDSIN Recruitment Director : Join 'TDSIN pub'
Glasgow Meet Organiser
|
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:56:56 -
[1182] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote: Show me the inty fit that locks at 250. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and tank a sniper Muninn. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and outrun a speed fit PVP inty/pirate frig.
this thing locks at 250 in sniper mode while going 7km/s , and it locks at 175 in speed mode, while going 11km/s (9kms if you dont use snakes+quafe zero) and will speedtank any sniper fit in the game at that speed and range.
http://i.imgur.com/t29IKHD.png (yes thats a whole 3 dps at 175km)
sniper fits are setup for 100% max tracking, with the smallest guns that will reach optimally at that range + appropriate ammo, hence their lack of targeting range in that graph. If you can find me a fit that tracks anywhere even close to well ill be shocked.
It also goes too fast to probe down, and can do the cloak mwd trick so hard its 30km out of a bubble before the MWD stops cycling, so its pretty much uncatchable at gates.
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
918
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:58:18 -
[1183] - Quote
I'd just like to pop in to say that when changes force entities who are notoriously neutral in their alignment and allegiance (snuffbox, Tri.) to blob up you have a winner system. |
Drechlas
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:01:57 -
[1184] - Quote
Lord TGR wrote: That's exploitable. I can have the station etc held by an alliance with 10 people or less in it, which obviously isn't desirable.
Yes and no, an alliance of 10 can't defend more than 10 positions which means 5 systems. All the others can be attacked and as such it isn't a feasible exploit
Lord TGR wrote: This can be dealt with by buffing something else, then increasing taxes for building stuff etc, for example.
True, in general most people tend to think in "nerf one" rather than "buff all other". Either way it needs to be dealt with. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
70
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:02:17 -
[1185] - Quote
Lickem Lolly wrote:Welcome to Griefing Online!
I've read the blog a few times and tried very hard to find something positive, but I just don't see it. As someone who has lived in nullsec in small and large alliances, I can tell you this will be horrible.
Major problems:
1) Griefers in interceptors will be pinging our SOV for giggles 24/7
From the original dev blog: " Build costs of approximately 20 million isk for Tech One, and approximately 80 million isk for Tech Two."
I expect CCP to raise this slightly or even dramatically but even if they don't. PLEASE hurl, literally hurl, as many 100M interceptors... as fast as you can, no, actually, faster, oh my god I can't wait just patch Tranquility now... into the waiting and loving arms of literally dozens of different configurations of sniper fit Attack BCs, HACs, and even other ceptors designed to run your ass down. My god I can't wait for those killmails to start rolling in.
TLDR: STOP HYPERBOLIZING ABOUT FRIGATES |
sytaqe violacea
Circus of midnight Vox Populi.
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:03:57 -
[1186] - Quote
"Prime Time" mechanism will be painful for AUTZ player. For USTZ player, attacking in EU/RUS prime hours is not so difficult, just log in weekend noon and attack EU/RUS TZ player. Attacking AUTZ is bit difficult because AUTZ prime hours are in morning for USTZ, but not so serious. However, for AUTZ player, attacking in any other TZs is painful, IIRC RUS/EU/US prime hours are located in AM1~10 of our TZ. It means AUTZ player are shut out of the most of sov warfare. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:06:43 -
[1187] - Quote
I have some questions and concerns now that I have had time to (hopefully) process it all:
- If certain ships types would prove to be simply too powerful at utilizing the Entosis Link; would CCP be willing to restrict it completely from a ship? You say capital ships will have the time increased to 400%, but for some groups it could mean a guaranteed win.
- Would not allowing certain modules to be fit if the Entosis Link is also fit? No cynos or cloaks as an example. Sure there is a sandbox game, but even a sandbox has walls.
- Structure notifications are a crutch that enable AFK empire type game play and allow groups to embrace the coalition lifestyle. If such a notification system is available for this new sov system, it will undermine the point of this sov revamp. Low fuel notifications are fine, but sending out notifications within seconds of someone shooting a structure (POS) or activating the Entosis Link is simply counter productive to the point of occupancy based sov. If the group who owns a POS, sov or station are in fact active in those systems, it will be easy to know if something is happening. It is the groups who take road trips to the other side of the map, travel long distances to assist a coalition members that greatly benefit from notifications. While I don't mind people having friends; I don't see the healthy game play value in being able to heavily assist random blues on the other side of the game.
- When activating the Entosis Link, does it stay on until the cycle is complete or can one deactivate it at any time in order to receive assistance and or dock/jump gate?
- Also on the subject of notifications and AFK empires; is there plans to keep the API from informing groups that their abandoned castles are being invaded if they choose not to use the space the castle sits in? You introduced the mobile siphon to help combat such behavior when it comes to large blocs consuming all the good moons across the game - yet dropped the ball big time because the API notifies within an hour if a mobile siphon is on the POS. Despite you saying the API would not allow it, players have figured out that adding a 3rd silo to the POS allows the API to provide the information needed for groups to continue their AFK moon printing presses negating any impact the mobile siphon can have. And speaking of such; what is taking so long in fixing this exploit? It has been well over a year.
- There is some concerns about alliances splintering into several alliances based around time zones in order to game the system. I'm sure you have thought about this, and could you list the pros and cons of trying such a tactic. Even touch on these crazy speed and range frigates other players are saying will become the #1 sov harassing doctrine.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:15:57 -
[1188] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote: Show me the inty fit that locks at 250. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and tank a sniper Muninn. Show me the inty fit that can lock at 250 and outrun a speed fit PVP inty/pirate frig.
this thing locks at 250 in sniper mode while going 7km/s , and it locks at 175 in speed mode, while going 11km/s (9kms if you dont use snakes+quafe zero) and will speedtank any sniper fit in the game at that speed and range. http://i.imgur.com/t29IKHD.png (yes thats a whole 3 dps at 175km) sniper fits are setup for 100% max tracking, with the smallest guns that will reach optimally at that range + appropriate ammo, hence their lack of targeting range in that graph. If you can find me a fit that tracks anywhere even close to well ill be shocked. It also goes too fast to probe down, and can do the cloak mwd trick so hard its 30km out of a bubble before the MWD stops cycling, so its pretty much uncatchable at gates. Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time.
2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:18:19 -
[1189] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Zappity wrote:Why not allow the first attack to occur any time but the reinforce end during the prime time? This could work I've been theorycrafting sov revamps since 2011 when it became blatantly obvious the system was broken and would lead to the end result we're seeing today, and at no point did I ever come up with the prime time solution. I find primetime to be interesting, though, but on one hand it could work as it'd let them defend, on the other hand it could mean randoms derping around and pinging everything for *****'n'giggles.
I honestly don't know which'd be the right design strategy here, and I suspect only rigorous playtesting'll answer that, like we found with the dominion sov where everyone loved it when it first came out, before it turned seriously sour. |
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:21:52 -
[1190] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png
Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired.
That naga fit wont hit at all either. |
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
191
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:22:24 -
[1191] - Quote
Drechlas wrote:Lord TGR wrote: That's exploitable. I can have the station etc held by an alliance with 10 people or less in it, which obviously isn't desirable.
Yes and no, an alliance of 10 can't defend more than 10 positions which means 5 systems. All the others can be attacked and as such it isn't a feasible exploit The owner of a station doesn't have to be the defender. The defender can be a 35000 man coalition, but the owner doesn't have to be. That's where the exploitable situation comes into play with making it a slider dependent on the size of whomever owns it.
Drechlas wrote:Lord TGR wrote: This can be dealt with by buffing something else, then increasing taxes for building stuff etc, for example.
True, in general most people tend to think in "nerf one" rather than "buff all other". Either way it needs to be dealt with. Correct. I'm not sure which'll be the correct route, but in general buffing all will be more positively received than nerfing one thing, even if nerfing one thing might be the correct thing to do. Conversely, if you buff everything else, chances are you'll have to nerf something else to compensate, which'll make a ton of other people whine, so you might just see "nerf one" if that's the simplest change which'll yield the lowest whines/nerf ratio. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:22:32 -
[1192] - Quote
MiliasColds wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:Here's an idea, what if they were battleships only.
It would give battleships a reason to be flown, and not make sov into a giant game of "catch the ceptor" if he can't warp off he's far more catchable, like with a loki :P
Unless he's also ewar immune :) |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:28:13 -
[1193] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired. That naga fit wont hit at all either.
Propulsion mode: Load Plutonium and swap to tracking speed scripts. I also T2'd both Metastasis adjusters http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png
Sniper mode: Load Tungsten and go half tracking half optimal scripts http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png |
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:31:11 -
[1194] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired. That naga fit wont hit at all either. Propulsion mode: Load Plutonium and swap to tracking speed scripts. I also T2'd both Metastasis adjusters http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png Sniper mode: Load Tungsten and go half tracking half optimal scripts http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png
You do realize thats 0.4 Damage per second right way less than even the passive shield regen on that thing. |
Geanos
V I R I I Triumvirate.
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:34:12 -
[1195] - Quote
I think that this "prime time" thing helps the mercenary alliances that will take the sov for you from people outside your time zone. And this is a good thing, it adds more variation to gameplay. So there will be huge incentives for said alliances to have people from all time zones. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:35:50 -
[1196] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: Will the Entosis cycle be affected by TIDI? ( I hope so otherwise Wyvern > Levi >Avatar > Aeon supremacy ) As it said in the dev blog, yes it will be affected by TiDi. Did you read it or just skim it?
Manfred Sideous wrote: I feel like the 4 hour window is to short. (I would recommend 6) I feel like the 4 hour window is fine for now until we see it in action for a bit. If it is too narrow of a window, it can always be increased later.
Manfred Sideous wrote: Besides the name on the map why would anyone choose to move to nullsec? ( Incursions , level 5's already offer more isk per hour than nullsec. ) If you are talking high sec Incursions, you are incorrect. Null anom farming is much better ISK. Level 5 missions pulls in less ISK per tick as well compared to null anoms.
Manfred Sideous wrote: How does all the Risk of Living in Nullsec compare to the rewards of other safer areas in Eve? From everything I have read and even experienced so far - null is one of the safest parts of the game. I get constant updates in my intel channel and anyone not blue I either kill or avoid. I go into high sec and I have war targets lurking everywhere. Even not knowing which neutral is an alt that will provide remote repairs to the war target I'm fighting. There is so much traffic of unknowns I can't keep track of them and to fight them requires I war dec them or suicide gank them. Even if there is no war targets I could be suicide ganked by anyone at any moment and there is no clear way for me to know who is a threat and who is not.
Manfred Sideous wrote: Supercapital Role ? Super capitals have yet to be rebalanced. I am hoping to see their role in the game be completely revamped into something beyond a structure grinder or expensive sling shot for fleet members. Esencially be patient and when CCP turns their attention to them, I'm sure they will enhance null in a positive way. One that is not just meaningful, but very enjoyable for the pilots involved without becoming 'I Win Buttons'. |
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:39:04 -
[1197] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Esencially be patient and when CCP turns their attention to them, I'm sure they will enhance null in a positive way. One that is not just meaningful, but very enjoyable for the pilots involved without becoming 'I Win Buttons'.
CCP has left entire CLASSES of ships uselessly nerfed for nearly half a decade, you better have the patience of a saint. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:41:18 -
[1198] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:Zip Slings wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:
Anything lands on grid capable of actually catching it and tackling it (only other T3 destroyers fit with a scram), it can just immediately warp off to a safe and cloak, wait for them to leave, then fire up the sov laser again.
1. Your idea that this Svipul would "just warp" seems to forget the fact that it can't warp for 2 minutes at a time. 2. http://i.imgur.com/waJhtx5.png Yes, i misspoke and edited my post, he would simply have to burn away until warpoff timer expired. That naga fit wont hit at all either. Propulsion mode: Load Plutonium and swap to tracking speed scripts. I also T2'd both Metastasis adjusters http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png Sniper mode: Load Tungsten and go half tracking half optimal scripts http://i.imgur.com/6EwBR6y.png You do realize thats 0.4 Damage per second right way less than even the passive shield regen on that thing.
god damnit... graphs and numbers... I was so proud of myself too.
Anyways, http://i.imgur.com/qaDmPO3.png one semi-good warpin and dead Svipul. |
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
414
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:42:10 -
[1199] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Things... The hero New Eden needs.
I'm running for CSM X because I want to empower the community builders of New Eden and help make a richer social environment both in and out of game. I'll need your support.
|
Iski Zuki DaSen
Icarus Academy
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:42:34 -
[1200] - Quote
Entosis Link Requires the skill Infomorph Psychology (rank 1 skill)."
**** shoulda been a leadership skill, next tier above fleet command ++r corp management skill
"hey hey i can jump clone" i now have the skill to own sov
so lets grab my interceptor and rule the world
oh no no i forgot i am an AU TZ player |
|
|
|
|
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 |