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) |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:43:18 -
[1201] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote: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'.
CCP has left entire CLASSES of ships uselessly nerfed for nearly half a decade, you better have the patience of a saint.[/quote] CCP have been knocking things out of the park for the last several months fixing things. One of the reasons why I actually started to play this game. I have faith they will keep up the good work. |
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1249
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:44:48 -
[1202] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Aryndel Vyst wrote:HEY LETS MAKE SOV EASIER TO TAKE FROM LARGE ENTITIES BUT GIVE NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER TO THE RESIDENTS.
Do you want everyone to do high sec incursions or something?
~content creation~ No they want 0.0 to be owned by people who actually want to fight, not carebears who hide behind blues while creating alts to shoot people who don't shoot back. Excessive suicide ganking is symptomatic of a stagnant null. No matter what the system is, how people actually fight, you aren't going to get much fighting if there's nothing to actually fight over. There's plenty of empty regions where you could fight purely for the sake of a fight, but some people, or some political structures, evidently need a narrative or purpose to do so.
Suicide ganking is shooting at ppl who don't shoot back, because you're scared. Making suicide alts is a result of being part of a group that blues 75% of the game and thus get bored, because you're scared and because you like your carebaring grinding grounds. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:45:02 -
[1203] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave 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. ) If you are talking high sec Incursions, null anom farming is much better ISK. Level 5 missions pulls in less ISK per tick as well compared to null anoms. (I could be misinformed about this though) You are unfortunately misinformed about this. Incursions are at least 2x better at ISK farming than null sec anoms |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:46:09 -
[1204] - Quote
Bam Stroker wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Things... The hero New Eden needs. I dunno. Kinda sounds like he didn't really read the dev blog. |
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:47:05 -
[1205] - Quote
It looks unbalanced to me. If I invest 12-42 minutes of my time I can send the defender on a goose chase taking them 10x12 minutes of player time. Lots of timers will be created especially in border regions. Many IHubs and TCUs will be destroyed because defenders will burn out, not necessarily because defenders lose fights.
If I get disrupted my capture will only be paused and I can come back later to finish (in reduced time). Capture progress should be reset at the end of the vulnerability window.
I don't see much need to have both IHubs and TCUs. With their roles degraded I think it would be better to consolidate them into a single structure. Having both just increases the grind. |
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:49:07 -
[1206] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote: There is alot more than just f1 to most fights, the f1 mentality only sets in when your in 10% tidi and 4+ fleets are on field, generally speaking. 50- to really 150 man fleets individual pilot decision and minor variances in fleet composition can have a dramatic impact on fight outcome. Also war at its base has a level of organization to it, with potentially 50+ objectives in a given constellation imposing any sort of organization seems unlikly at best.
In a 50-150 man fleet you typically have <= 5 people who do anything besides pressing F1. Everyone is to shut up and listen to the FC - with the exception of maybe few accepted additional helpers like Logi anchor, scouts, secondary target caller...
Fleet members do not decide where they warp, they do not decide what they shoot and they certainly do not decide which fleet composition will be fielded.
With 50+ objectives, fleets will be less centralized and decision making will likely move down the command chain a bit (teh HORROR!)
Maybe squad commanders suddenly play a role. This could stop the tendency that people are afraid to be FC if there is just ONE FC in the alliance who is significantly better. Plus their decisions will not ruin the entire fight, but maybe just cause the loss of a few ships or a squad.
Vigilanta wrote: The main issue that gets me is that if you were to invade say the US, you cant really start at colorado and work your way out as you need supply lines ect, you would start at a border or coast and push your way in meaning that your number of targets is inherently limited to whats infront of you, as proposed that doesn't exist in this system. Maybe a way to rectify this is have your sov's borders play a role in conquest. Additionally I think more than likely the most fun would be if you had fleets of around 50 duking it our over the various command nodes, still a decent sized fight, but not so diffused in numbers that you spend more time warping around then fighting.
No one says that it must be possible and easy to steamroll a whole constellation in one go (especially with defenders present). With the proposed system attacker and defender are completely free to do or not to do what they like. Small battles only... but what happens if the defender places a Battleship with a cyno at each node? Maybe the attackers now try to use links from 250km. Both sides can escalate fights OR choose to avoid a direct confrontation and just capture nodes that are not contested by the other side. The system basically only says: you need to establish military superiority in the target constellation for a certain (short) timespan - no matter how you do this. This CAN be a decisive fight 50 vs 50, but if you have 50 and the enemy only has 20, they still have other options instead of blueballing. Maybe they play whack-a mole with you, maybe they try to force you to use smaller ships and score a few kills or save at least some objectives. I see the system makes attacking/contesting sov easy AND forces the defenders to actively defend AND gives parties more options than just showing up with greater numbers. And THAT is the point.
Vigilanta wrote: Stations - Once your in freeport mode, welcome to bubble bubble bubbles anyhting undocks undock yoru counter fleet to keep them stuck in, with only 1 48 timer as your protection from this, it is very difficult to evac assets, meaning that why would we take the risk of gettign stuck like this, just move to NPC and your assets are 100% safe. the 2 timers are fine the freeporting is meh.
What keeps the attacker from bubbling your station now while the first or second timer runs? The only thing I see is that the first timer gains importance, because the defender will lose most of the defending advantage when they lose the first fight. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1082
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:50:10 -
[1207] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Bam Stroker wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Things... The hero New Eden needs. I dunno. Kinda sounds like he didn't really read the dev blog.
Yeah I admit I read it a few times when I woke up. Then I had to prepare for a op for F4R2 move supers etc run the op. Go to shops and stuff and I didn't get out of bed till 21:00. Remember the only dumb questions are the ones never asked.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:50:11 -
[1208] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: Next I would seek to create incentives for people to reside in nullsec. One of the biggest is the ability to be self sustaining via local resources. I would then give the orca , jump freighter , bowhead & rorqual the same fatigue as other ships. I would reduce the JF range of that to all other ships. Doing this would make nullsec so much healthier. A real sense of community when the welfare & supply of the alliance is shared by all. Instead of what we currently have " A few guys and some cynos whisking off to Jita to procure everything players need" When you do this you end up with more players in space doing things to supply the alliance and its members with all the goods and materials they need to function. CCP has already said this is planned. The reason why industrial ships received the 90% bonus to Jump Fatigue is to buy them time until they are able to do a proper resource gathering balance to allow groups to live off null instead of relying on Jita so much. Once that happens the bonus to Jump Fatigue will be removed.
One step at a time my friend. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:50:27 -
[1209] - Quote
Jattila Vrek wrote:It looks unbalanced to me. If I invest 12-42 minutes of my time I can send the defender on a goose chase taking them 10x12 minutes of player time. Lots of timers will be created especially in border regions. Many IHubs and TCUs will be destroyed because defenders will burn out, not necessarily because defenders lose fights.
If I get disrupted my capture will only be paused and I can come back later to finish (in reduced time). Capture progress should be reset at the end of the vulnerability window.
I don't see much need to have both IHubs and TCUs. With their roles degraded I think it would be better to consolidate them into a single structure. Having both just increases the grind.
Continuing to think in a mindset where there is space that you own but aren't physically "in" is a problem a lot of people are having. If you have "border regions" that your pilots aren't physically "in" then you will lose those systems for exactly the reasons you explained. Working as intended. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:51:26 -
[1210] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Bam Stroker wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Things... The hero New Eden needs. I dunno. Kinda sounds like he didn't really read the dev blog. Yeah I admit I read it a few times when I woke up. Then I had to prepare for a op for F4R2 move supers etc run the op. Go to shops and stuff and I didn't get out of bed till 21:00. Remember the only dumb questions are the ones never asked. Fair enough. I'm not here to bust your balls. I just thought some of the questions you asked were funny. |
|
Reiisha
Repracor Industries
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:53:04 -
[1211] - Quote
Probably mentioned before, but ah well.
One weird thing to me is offering t1 and t2 versions of the link. No one in their right might is going to use t1 *at all* unless it offers some significant advantage over t2, which it doesn't. Just remove the T2 version and give the T1 version the T2 stats.
Offering T1 and T2 for this module is complexity for complexity's sake, which is just a bad idea. A little naggle maybe but still. You either have a link or you don't.
Also, it feels like the initial entosis link concept (capturing a structure) is basically the same as a structure grind, just with a different weapon. I feel like this is a bad idea - continuing the concept of the grind, just dressing it up differently. Why not keep the tcu, make it invulnerable and make it a king of the hill style battle to capture it, a point system rewarding presence rather than a grind. If the attacker manages to stay on the grind and maintain a better presence they win, and if the defenders manage to take the domineering presence they win.
Of course, i currently don't have the perspective to offer a better solution (although i still insist that a purely activity based system is far better than anything involving structures) i do think the current (proposed) system leans way, WAY too much on structures and a certain form of structure grind, rather than actually rewarding living in systems and constellations. I think the devs may be stuck in a certain mindset and are unable to take a (large) step back to remove themselves from the details of sov mechanics and start over completely, rather than what is basically patching the current sov system.
If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
|
Doctor Fabulous MD
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:54:52 -
[1212] - Quote
The thing is, even if you land DIRECTLY ontop of the svipul through some kind of insane miracle, its burning at 11KM/s, which means its out of your scram range in a single tick, it takes an absolute minimum of 2 ticks (seconds) to lock something and activate a mod.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:57:16 -
[1213] - Quote
Reiisha wrote:Probably mentioned before, but ah well.
One weird thing to me is offering t1 and t2 versions of the link. No one in their right might is going to use t1 *at all* unless it offers some significant advantage over t2, which it doesn't. Just remove the T2 version and give the T1 version the T2 stats.
Offering T1 and T2 for this module is complexity for complexity's sake, which is just a bad idea. A little naggle maybe but still. You either have a link or you don't.
Also, it feels like the initial entosis link concept (capturing a structure) is basically the same as a structure grind, just with a different weapon. I feel like this is a bad idea - continuing the concept of the grind, just dressing it up differently. Why not keep the tcu, make it invulnerable and make it a king of the hill style battle to capture it, a point system rewarding presence rather than a grind. If the attacker manages to stay on the grind and maintain a better presence they win, and if the defenders manage to take the domineering presence they win.
Of course, i currently don't have the perspective to offer a better solution (although i still insist that a purely activity based system is far better than anything involving structures) i do think the current (proposed) system leans way, WAY too much on structures and a certain form of structure grind, rather than actually rewarding living in systems and constellations. I think the devs may be stuck in a certain mindset and are unable to take a (large) step back to remove themselves from the details of sov mechanics and start over completely, rather than what is basically patching the current sov system.
As far as T1/T2 goes its all about price. The T2 is supposed to be restrictively expensive and the T1 more useful for heavily active tanked ships that don't mind being at close range.
Secondly, the "kind of the hill" battle is won by whoever dumps more people in supers and caps onto the field and tanks for the longest. As in, exactly as it is now. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:58:40 -
[1214] - Quote
I'm also concerned about these structures being placed next to a death star pos. I feel like that raises the bar dramatically in what is needed to contest sov. To a degree that goes against the goal of having this new system become more available to non-bloc groups and enables AFK style empires.
Defending sov should require real players. Not some automated system to do the work for you. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:00:57 -
[1215] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:The thing is, even if you land DIRECTLY ontop of the svipul through some kind of insane miracle, its burning at 11KM/s, which means its out of your scram range in a single tick, it takes an absolute minimum of 2 ticks (seconds) to lock something and activate a mod. The best thing i can imagine is just hitting it with a 60KM web after a lucky warpin, but even then it can STILL burn out of range of any ship capable of fitting a 90% web....
My theory crafting assumes you don't have super shiny implants but ARE using quafe zero. If it really is nigh uncatchable (yes Jack Sparrow reference) then why not fit up your own svipul and overheat?
Also I just realized this whole discussion is academic because we don't know the fitting requirements of the T2 module yet. If I were CCP I would make the T2 module make some of these ridiculous fits impossible. |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:02:56 -
[1216] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:I'm also concerned about these structures being placed next to a death star pos. I feel like that raises the bar dramatically in what is needed to contest sov. To a degree that goes against the goal of having this new system become more available to non-bloc groups and enables AFK style empires.
Defending sov should require real players. Not some automated system to do the work for you.
Ihubs can only be placed on planets. TCUs could be placed on deathstar POSes but that's how it is now and somehow people take systems. Also, taking someone's Ihub and station and leaving them their TCU is a possibility. And it wouldn't be long in that scenario before the pack up their Death Star and go home leaving the TCU undefended |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:05:11 -
[1217] - Quote
Jattila Vrek wrote:It looks unbalanced to me. If I invest 12-42 minutes of my time I can send the defender on a goose chase taking them 10x12 minutes of player time. Lots of timers will be created especially in border regions. Many IHubs and TCUs will be destroyed because defenders will burn out, not necessarily because defenders lose fights. It doesn't take that much to respond to this though, just having one (or a few) standing fleets of the same type we used to have way back then where they dealt with incursions of gankers would suffice. I'm not sure about the prime time feature (I don't know if it should be removed, extended, or kept as is; I'm leaning towards extended but otherwise kept as-is), but at the very least it means the defenders know exactly when they have to be on guard in their own space.
Jattila Vrek wrote:If I get disrupted my capture will only be paused and I can come back later to finish (in reduced time). Capture progress should be reset at the end of the vulnerability window. Again, it doesn't take much to reverse it to the point where it's reset.
Jattila Vrek wrote:I don't see much need to have both IHubs and TCUs. With their roles degraded I think it would be better to consolidate them into a single structure. Having both just increases the grind. Initially I thought "I agree", but the more I think about it, the more I agree with the division. The TCU does put down the flag, but the IHUB and station is what'll drive the actual cost of space, which means that the alliance can be the space owner, but a corp could be responsible for the station and system upgrades, making it possible to do a much more granular division of who owns what, and spread the costs and incomes out more to those who actually live there.
So I think I'm going to just respectfully disagree with you there. |
Starman 1
The Executives Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:06:39 -
[1218] - Quote
Guess I do think they are making this to easy, alliance need always to be ready to undock a fleet. If this don't mosty benefits large entities to be able to keep their sov i dont know who else than griefers it might benefit. Smal aliances cant keep sov unless noone wants it. But hey can be the Griefer in stead |
bear mcgreedy
Shadow State Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:10:07 -
[1219] - Quote
So i've finally gotten round to reading the blogs and looked at it and teh first reaction is you looked at teh faction warfare model and have adapated it to null sec model?
In principle i think the idea is a good one sov becomes vulnerable and able to be taken fairly quickly however i have a few questions that seem to be eluded in the posts
you say that it would be more beneficial to the little guy taking sov ( i don't see this as system is undersieged its about the blob recent mechanics its not about the skill sets its about numbers)
it seems we have adapted a capture the flag and defend the flag mechanic.
the freeport idea is ok to a degree however a defending force with a lower player base(aka the little guy) vs a coalition such as n3 or cfc has no chance and can lose that system in a matter of hours - suggest having a draw back here to stop alliances moving the entire fleet in and hell camping the station. giving the attackers the advantage
stop alliances having the timer 2 hrs before dt and two hrs after dt - that way they have to be active and cannot take advantage of any extra down time .
keep up the good work i know this is work in progress . |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
109
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:20:29 -
[1220] - Quote
Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:The thing is, even if you land DIRECTLY ontop of the svipul through some kind of insane miracle, its burning at 11KM/s, which means its out of your scram range in a single tick, it takes an absolute minimum of 2 ticks (seconds) to lock something and activate a mod. The best thing i can imagine is just hitting it with a 60KM web after a lucky warpin, but even then it can STILL burn out of range of any recon ship capable of fitting the multiple webs its going to take to kill it. That thing has an align time of 28 seconds - you don't need to tackle it. (would be pointed by the ento thingy anyway) Just probe and warp on top of it with a long range ship. You'll then have a low EHP target with a 750m sig radius burning in a more or less straight line away from you. |
|
Jethro Amar
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:26:55 -
[1221] - Quote
I love it.
It's going to make a lot of smaller-scale fights. Every roaming gang passing through your territory can force a fight by entosing a station. Nowadays people hardly ever bother undocking, with the changes if you refuse to defend your space on day one you will have to defend 5 of them the next time - it's easier to protect the station than command nodes.
It will be easier to rat and mine outside of prime time - cause everyone will go somewhere else to troll their sov. That timer will be visible for everyone (preferably on star map).
The big alliances will still have the use for supercaps, as they are the only ships that can reliably survive with the link on (everything subcap can be sniped by a bunch of petes without reps), but they won't be able to use those supers everywhere.
Why do people go to Catch to get fights? cause Braves always undock. Now everyone else will have to.
Don't like constant fights? hisec that way -----> |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1978
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:27:08 -
[1222] - Quote
I have a question. Can a gang apply several entosis links, one to each station service at same time?
And then I must congratulate CCP on finnaly trying really hard to fix the major problems of 0.0. I might not agree with every detail, but seems a very valid approach.
The only point that I find disturbing is the concept of prime time. Why? Because you could have a coalition of a specific timezone ( you know very well what country I am talking about) become invulnerable by simply gathering all major forces that speak their own idiom/live in a certain timezone.
That is not easy to solv. But I hope someone might have a good idea on how to tackle that. Something as for example, the LONGER the constellation is stable (that means no one takes anythign from the owner there) the larger the prime time period becomes. SO if you have held stuff for 1 year with nothing contesting you. Your prime time window could be widened to 6 hours... Why ? Just a reaction to a clear state of near invulnerability, that opens up more chances.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1553
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:29:58 -
[1223] - Quote
Zip Slings wrote: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
Quite true, but the reason for the hyperbolae is quite clear.
When defending a nation/territory, one can have :-
force projection ( in Eve solution well in hand) Defend one's borders. Local defence.
Now without porous borders, there is no need whatsoever for local defence, one can reinforce the borders and have great swathes of space unoccupied, and unprotected.
Interceptors and fast frigates, make the border porous, thereby ENFORCING local defence by people living in occupied systems.
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CHANGE.
By people campaigning against interceptors they are hoping to fool CCP into undoing all their work.
One of two things will happen.
If they succeed, they will celebrate their plan and CCP will look stupid.
If CCP succeed they will celebrate THEIR plan and those campaigning for "keep it practically as now" will look etc
I know where the smart money is betting............
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:30:36 -
[1224] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Doctor Fabulous MD wrote:The thing is, even if you land DIRECTLY ontop of the svipul through some kind of insane miracle, its burning at 11KM/s, which means its out of your scram range in a single tick, it takes an absolute minimum of 2 ticks (seconds) to lock something and activate a mod. The best thing i can imagine is just hitting it with a 60KM web after a lucky warpin, but even then it can STILL burn out of range of any recon ship capable of fitting the multiple webs its going to take to kill it. That thing has an align time of 28 seconds - you don't need to tackle it. (would be pointed by the ento thingy anyway) Just probe and warp on top of it with a long range ship. You'll then have a low EHP target with a 750m sig radius burning in a more or less straight line away from you.
Yeah! That! I thought of it first! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1978
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:30:43 -
[1225] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:we have to create a strategic mining division to protect important systems are you ******* kidding me
nullsec mining has been broken for ages, go look at the price of mega and zyd and then think about why on earth mining should play a role here
You do not need to do it, as long as you keep your sov within your reasonable size limits that you can react very fast. Buttt.. if you want a huge empire.. then you need to work...
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:30:55 -
[1226] - Quote
bear mcgreedy wrote: you say that it would be more beneficial to the little guy taking sov ( i don't see this as system is undersieged its about the blob recent mechanics its not about the skill sets its about numbers) A defender'll have more ready access to reshipping upon losses than an attacker would, and moving around within an entire constellation means the defender'll have the possibility to have multiple ships stowed away in each system, while the attacker might not.
bear mcgreedy wrote: the freeport idea is ok to a degree however a defending force with a lower player base(aka the little guy) vs a coalition such as n3 or cfc has no chance and can lose that system in a matter of hours - suggest having a draw back here to stop alliances moving the entire fleet in and hell camping the station. giving the attackers the advantage Not necessarily, but it is a risk. It also allows an attacker to reinforce a system to get some of their own stuff out, which'll mean there's more incentive to actually attack than just "I want that system", which is all good.
bear mcgreedy wrote: stop alliances having the timer 2 hrs before dt and two hrs after dt - that way they have to be active and cannot take advantage of any extra down time. Or just extend the primetime to compensate for the downtime? |
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:31:46 -
[1227] - Quote
bear mcgreedy wrote:So i've finally gotten round to reading the blogs and looked at it and teh first reaction is you looked at teh faction warfare model and have adapated it to null sec model? In principle i think the idea is a good one sov becomes vulnerable and able to be taken fairly quickly however i have a few questions that seem to be eluded in the posts you say that it would be more beneficial to the little guy taking sov ( i don't see this as system is undersieged its about the blob recent mechanics its not about the skill sets its about numbers) it seems we have adapted a capture the flag and defend the flag mechanic. the freeport idea is ok to a degree however a defending force with a lower player base(aka the little guy) vs a coalition such as n3 or cfc has no chance and can lose that system in a matter of hours - suggest having a draw back here to stop alliances moving the entire fleet in and hell camping the station. giving the attackers the advantage stop alliances having the timer 2 hrs before dt and two hrs after dt - that way they have to be active and cannot take advantage of any extra down time . keep up the good work i know this is work in progress .
The system still favors those that can leverage a huge force in an organized fashion. Working as intended. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1978
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:32:16 -
[1228] - 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 ..
The 2 parts of your statements are contraditory. If you ad REALLY read ANYTHING. You would know they will be able to ping your sov only 4 hours per day....a t your PRIME TIME.
So go back.. learn to read.. and try again.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Endie
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:33:38 -
[1229] - Quote
Rather than James315 the thread up I posted the first of what will be a short series of articles on Fozziesov on my blog: http://www.endie.net/wordpress/2015/03/scyllasov-fozziesov-called-anyway/
tl;dr is that I welcome huge swathes of the system but there are a few areas that are clearly designed to be tweaked that probably need tweaked.
|
Zip Slings
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
74
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:33:58 -
[1230] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Zip Slings wrote: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 Quite true, but the reason for the hyperbolae is quite clear. When defending a nation/territory, one can have :- force projection ( in Eve solution well in hand) Defend one's borders. Local defence. Now without porous borders, there is no need whatsoever for local defence, one can reinforce the borders and have great swathes of space unoccupied, and unprotected. Interceptors and fast frigates, make the border porous, thereby ENFORCING local defence by people living in occupied systems. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CHANGE. By people campaigning against interceptors they are hoping to fool CCP into undoing all their work. One of two things will happen. If they succeed, they will celebrate their plan and CCP will look stupid. If CCP succeed they will celebrate THEIR plan and those campaigning for "keep it practically as now" will look etc I know where the smart money is betting............
Can we simplify this down to "Zip is right and all you nullbears stop whining"? |
|
|
|
|
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 |