EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Tykonderoga FinFleet Northern Coalition. 30	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:40:50 - [1381] - Quote Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: My ground argument is Doomsday should be able to to speed up structor grind., not a Link that can be used by a 2 mill SP character. Linking a ship which requires sov to build, to taking sov, is an inherently flawed catch-22, and the point of how the capture mechanism is right now is that it IS easy(ish) to defend against. A titan can go in there, splort splorf its DD then ride its EHP buffer until it can receive RR again. Just no. Then by all means, invade us before the summer and let is "spalrf, splarf" all over you. After summer, see you in an interceptor, baby!
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 11973	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:41:15 - [1382] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: Which is another point. The fighting for sov is all very interesting, but I don't see many reasons to bother fighting for sov. Most nullsec space is virtually worthless. The best nullsec space is actually the NPC pockets with pirate level 4 missions. That's my second post in the thread. They've created what seems to be an improvement on a system that generates and enables conflict. But where are the farms and fields? Where is the incentive to actually live there, besides just the **** trophy of planting a flag? As for the CSM, there are two possibilities here. Either they already knew and had their say by now, or they got caught with their pants down and haven't formulated a response yet. Pick whichever you please until someone corrects me. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 45	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:41:23 - [1383] - Quote Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea. Why? Why shouldn't relatively new and inexperienced people be able to give it a go in unused/undefended space? Is sov supposed to be only for the elitist few? Ummm Yes.
Lord TGR Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 192	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:42:31 - [1384] - Quote Cr Turist wrote: Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea. Why? Why shouldn't relatively new and inexperienced people be able to give it a go in unused/undefended space? Is sov supposed to be only for the elitist few? Ummm Yes. Incorrect.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 1455	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:43:17 - [1385] - Quote So, you're proposing changing the current meta, which requires large numbers of large, expensive ships to engage in Sov warfare involving mindless grinds to a new meta which allows large numbers of small, inexpensive ships to engage in Sov warfare involving mindless grinds. Well, at least the defenders would get to choose when their mindless grinds are going to happen, so that's a step in the right direction. As a point of reference, I am referring to the concept of a Trollceptor as mentioned on TMC. CCP, unless you want Sov warfare to devolve into massive blobs of 'Ceptors, please either reduce the range of the T2 Entosis links or make their fitting requirements high enough that they cannot be fit to 'Ceptors. My Many Misadventures Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I seek to create content, not become content.
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 45	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:43:36 - [1386] - Quote Lord TGR wrote: Cr Turist wrote: Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea. Why? Why shouldn't relatively new and inexperienced people be able to give it a go in unused/undefended space? Is sov supposed to be only for the elitist few? Ummm Yes. Incorrect. No pritty sure im right.
Kah'Les hirr Northern Coalition. 6	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:44:04 - [1387] - Quote Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea. Why? Why shouldn't relatively new and inexperienced people be able to give it a go in unused/undefended space? Is sov supposed to be only for the elitist few? They still be able to take undefened space without the use of the link, undefended is undefended. You got a hard time understanding words? And yes null sec is supposed to be for the hardcore that's how it started a long time ago. It supposed to take more effort than high and low sec. And in returne you supposed to get more out of each system.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 235	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:44:39 - [1388] - Quote Cr Turist wrote: Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea. Why? Why shouldn't relatively new and inexperienced people be able to give it a go in unused/undefended space? Is sov supposed to be only for the elitist few? Ummm Yes. Ummm no. Holding sov should be something anyone can aspire to, without having to kowtow to the likes of you or me or Vince/PGL/Mittens. Pissing on the little guy is fine, but it should be our actions, not the game mechanics, that do it.
Makari Aeron The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium 201	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:44:53 - [1389] - Quote Ok, after reading over the article multiple times, I have come to the conclusion that this makes sov even less desirable for small entities. Here is why: Entosis Link: pointless. Big power blocs can just put a super tanked battleship with carrier logi support and it'll never die in time Independent sov structures: make the space easier to take, thus harder for smaller entities to keep Prime time: terrible idea, sorry. Again, the whole big power blocs having more people on during their primetime. OR people putting it over DT and the defender gaining an advantage due to the interruption of DT Capture Event: If I wanted to do FW, I'd do FW and not be in nullsec. Freeport: good idea in thoery, but this just means the blob can dock up in station and clone jump out. 2 days later, they come back via clone jump with no penalties. Make them travel back for it instead. No freeport, thanks. Occupancy Defense: this is probably the ONLY thing I marginally agree with. However, this simply gives more power to the AFK cloaker who does nothing in system but sit there 23/7. All in all, I feel this is a jab at Providence, especially with the pictures of all the constellations. Regardless of that, I do not support this sov change as it does not address the elephant in the room: the reason to actually own sov. Can I live with this change? Yes. I just think it's a very daft "fix". CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty. CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
Saint Michaels Soul PCG Enterprises 23	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:45:54 - [1390] - Quote I cautiously welcome this change, however I think it's going to need quite a bit of tweaking. I believe that this will cause more localised content (read fights) but there are some concerns. In the current scenario it feels as if the attacker gets a considerable advantage, even when the space they're attacking IS well-used. 1. Entosis link range - This has been brought up a few times by different commentators. You should have to be up close and vulnerable to use a link. 2. Disposable ships using the Entosis link. Wouldn't it be nicer to have a bit more of a fitting requirement on them? Battlecruiser size hull and above would make getting your fleet in position a little more challenging and would perhaps give another unique aspect to the BC and BS sized hulls, which are sorely lacking in usage at the moment.

Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 45	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:46:02 - [1391] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Cr Turist wrote: Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea. Why? Why shouldn't relatively new and inexperienced people be able to give it a go in unused/undefended space? Is sov supposed to be only for the elitist few? Ummm Yes. Ummm no. Holding sov should be something anyone can aspire to, without having to kowtow to the likes of you or me or Vince/PGL/Mittens. Pissing on the little guy is fine, but it should be our actions, not the game mechanics, that do it. if you can take space and keep space u can have space it shouldnt take CCP giving it to you. provi is a great example of this they took the space they wanted and they defend it at all cost.
Lord TGR Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 192	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:49:07 - [1392] - Quote Cr Turist wrote: Lord TGR wrote: Cr Turist wrote: Lord TGR wrote: Kah'Les wrote: Linking a ship that takes 30 min to build and cost 100 mill to take sov is even a worse idea. Why? Why shouldn't relatively new and inexperienced people be able to give it a go in unused/undefended space? Is sov supposed to be only for the elitist few? Ummm Yes. Incorrect. No pritty sure im right. No, pretty sure it's not supposed to be for the elitist few. Eager, but inexperienced pilots should be able to have a go as well, adding a ship which requires sov into that mix is going the wrong way. So no, you're not right.
Memphis Baas 188	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:49:37 - [1393] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: One other important point. WTF is the CSM? I haven't seem a single post from a current CSM member in this thread with an opinion on these proposals. Manny, Endie, Corebloodbrothers - where are you? The elections are still going on and this announcement CAN affect the chances of quite a few candidates, because let's be honest if this is what CCP is focusing on, then it makes sense to vote a nullsec CSM and maybe not so much the highsec or industry candidates. So I'm guessing they're shutting up in order to not affect elections any more than CCP already has. Also, they haven't been "sworn in" so to speak. NDA is not signed, rules and regulations about what to communicate and what not to communicate haven't been gone over, so what exactly do you want them to post?
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1556	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:49:41 - [1394] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: So, you're proposing changing the current meta, which requires large numbers of large, expensive ships to engage in Sov warfare involving mindless grinds to a new meta which allows large numbers of small, inexpensive ships to engage in Sov warfare involving mindless grinds. Well, at least the defenders would get to choose when their mindless grinds are going to happen, so that's a step in the right direction. As a point of reference, I am referring to the concept of a Trollceptor as mentioned on TMC. CCP, unless you want Sov warfare to devolve into massive blobs of 'Ceptors, please either reduce the range of the T2 Entosis links or make their fitting requirements high enough that they cannot be fit to 'Ceptors. Well It seems the the authors of the article have understood how interceptors will enforce active residence in the systems within an alliance area, and they are not subject to being defused by distant border controls. Of course a large area of protected undefended space is all very nice, but this is designed to change all that. But naturally an attempt must be made to prevent the new system succeeding. So interceptors ensure occupants, active, and engaged. Banning them reinforces current sovereignty stagnation. Don't think you are going to get your way. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Suede Caldari Provisions Caldari State 24	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:50:59 - [1395] - Quote DeadDuck wrote: CCP, In order to prevent abuses and griefing please restrict the use of Entosis Link to Capital Ships. If a group or alliance wants to mess with someones sov make them commit seriously. what you are saying it going to lock it to one sided again most new player can not fly capital ships, stuff like this will force new players to not want to play eve
Kah'Les hirr Northern Coalition. 6	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:51:06 - [1396] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Kah'Les wrote: And yes null sec is supposed to be for the hardcore. Yes yes, tell us all how hardcore you are while playing an internet video game. Look, sov should be something where when someone wants it, they have to earn it. Their ability to earn it should be based on effort and ability, not on whether or not they've met an arbitrary threshold of account age. And that's all 'being able to fly X ship' really is - are you old enough to have gotten the training time in for this kind of hull? Thanks for explaining what hardcore is? Taking time and effort to earn your space, not just activate a Entosis Link, but put efforts and guns into it.
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 46	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:51:25 - [1397] - Quote AlexKent wrote: Hear that boys? It's the titan prices falling in a cascade of delicious NCdot tears. Also, RIP renter empire, you might wanna merge NA in your alliance so you will be able to protect their space. So much for being elite. umm this effects you just as much if not more than us m8.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 236	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:51:38 - [1398] - Quote Cr Turist wrote: if you can take space and keep space u can have space it shouldnt take CCP giving it to you. provi is a great example of this they took the space they wanted and they defend it at all cost. Right. If you can take space you can have space. But 'if you can take space' should be 'if you can take space', not 'if your account is old enough for CCP to allow you to try'. Someone who's ballsy enough, smart enough, and busts his butt to do the work shouldn't be sitting around saying 'well, I'd love to hold sov, but CCP says I can't until I have X hull'. That's just bull.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 11975	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:51:41 - [1399] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: So interceptors ensure occupants, active, and engaged. Banning them reinforces current sovereignty stagnation. Don't think you are going to get your way. You might actually be handicapped. You can just park a battleship on a timer to contest it, with a tank that an interceptor can't break. These changes are a huge buff to even a semi active defender. So no matter what, you don't get your way. Interceptors need nerfed for a lot of reasons, besides. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Black Ambulance 25	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:52:25 - [1400] - Quote Suede wrote: DeadDuck wrote: CCP, In order to prevent abuses and griefing please restrict the use of Entosis Link to Capital Ships. If a group or alliance wants to mess with someones sov make them commit seriously. what you are saying it going to lock it to one sided again most new player can not fly capital ships, stuff like this will force new players to not want to play eve restrict it to noobships only

Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 46	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:53:10 - [1401] - Quote Ummm Yes.[/quote] Incorrect.[/quote] No pritty sure im right. [/quote] No, pretty sure it's not supposed to be for the elitist few. Eager, but inexperienced pilots should be able to have a go as well, adding a ship which requires sov into that mix is going the wrong way. So no, you're not right.[/quote] looks at brave and thinks to self what is this guys argument. so still right
Lord TGR Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 192	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:53:34 - [1402] - Quote Kah'Les wrote: Arrendis wrote: Kah'Les wrote: And yes null sec is supposed to be for the hardcore. Yes yes, tell us all how hardcore you are while playing an internet video game. Look, sov should be something where when someone wants it, they have to earn it. Their ability to earn it should be based on effort and ability, not on whether or not they've met an arbitrary threshold of account age. And that's all 'being able to fly X ship' really is - are you old enough to have gotten the training time in for this kind of hull? Thanks for explaining what hardcore is? Taking time and effort to earn your space, not just activate a Entosis Link, but put efforts and guns into it. Oh hey what's this, the defenders undocked another ship and put their own entosis link on the target, stopping the reinforcement? Oh dear, guess the defender's ****** now.
Kah'Les hirr Northern Coalition. 6	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:53:36 - [1403] - Quote Lord TGR wrote: No, pretty sure it's not supposed to be for the elitist few. Eager, but inexperienced pilots should be able to have a go as well, adding a ship which requires sov into that mix is going the wrong way. So no, you're not right. Pretty sure that you missed the point, look at brave they are comidet to their sov they hold it at all cost. They are low sp but they put effort in and time = hardcore...
Behr Oroo The Circus Corp Alternate Allegiance 96	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:53:37 - [1404] - Quote So with the prime time thing... what stops a group from just making their prime the same as one of the big blocks like Goons or NC, or whoever. Then you havent created content. Just a stalemate.
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 46	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:54:46 - [1405] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Cr Turist wrote: if you can take space and keep space u can have space it shouldnt take CCP giving it to you. provi is a great example of this they took the space they wanted and they defend it at all cost. Right. If you can take space you can have space. But 'if you can take space' should be 'if you can take space', not 'if your account is old enough for CCP to allow you to try'. Someone who's ballsy enough, smart enough, and busts his butt to do the work shouldn't be sitting around saying 'well, I'd love to hold sov, but CCP says I can't until I have X hull'. That's just bull. so instead it should be because i have X amount of ishtars?
Abrazzar Vardaugas Family 6120	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:55:05 - [1406] - Quote I wonder where the CSM stands in all of this. There's only a single post from them in this thread. Considering the significance of the matter, some representation may be appropriate? Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 46	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:55:33 - [1407] - Quote Kah'Les wrote: Lord TGR wrote: No pritty sure im right. No, pretty sure it's not supposed to be for the elitist few. Eager, but inexperienced pilots should be able to have a go as well, adding a ship which requires sov into that mix is going the wrong way. So no, you're not right. Pretty sure that you missed the point, look at brave they are comidet to their sov they hold it at all cost. They are low sp but they put effort in and time = hardcore...[/quote] hey look another goon
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1556	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:55:41 - [1408] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: epicurus ataraxia wrote: So interceptors ensure occupants, active, and engaged. Banning them reinforces current sovereignty stagnation. Don't think you are going to get your way. You might actually be handicapped. You can just park a battleship on a timer to contest it, with a tank that an interceptor can't break. These changes are a huge buff to even a semi active defender. So no matter what, you don't get your way. Interceptors need nerfed for a lot of reasons, besides. Somewhat missing the point, once again. Interceptors are able to take uncontested systems into contention, if no one comes, you don't need to return with anything better. Systems with people living in them, will have no problems with them, all banning interceptors from this role will achieve is to enable an alliance to hold large areas of lightly occupied or empty buffer systems within strong borders. Of course they want interceptors banned, it is cozy at the moment, but you already knew that, didn't you? There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Lord TGR Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 192	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:57:42 - [1409] - Quote Kah'Les wrote: Lord TGR wrote: No, pretty sure it's not supposed to be for the elitist few. Eager, but inexperienced pilots should be able to have a go as well, adding a ship which requires sov into that mix is going the wrong way. So no, you're not right. Pretty sure that you missed the point, look at brave they are comidet to their sov they hold it at all cost. They are low sp but they put effort in and time = hardcore... I'm sure your titans'll get a role somewhere, but I strongly doubt being a direct part of reinforcing a station/TCU/IHUB is going to be one of those.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1558	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:58:04 - [1410] - Quote Demons Hell wrote: O_O....25 km t1.....O_o...250 km t2....whaaaaaaat?.....o_O....its ******* OP....good boost for a tech 2 stuff....i dont see in game one another stuff can boost +1000% the tech1 variant. its ok if u boost the entosis range with the class ship(role bonus)....more big ship for more entosis range....but max 100 km not more..250 km in interceptor its ridicolous. and please station service invulnerable....only hackable in the freeport mode or during the second timer...i dont want run in a station every time a troll frigate with a tech 1 module try hack and disable a station service. i want play the game not only run in the game. fix trolletto mechanics please. Shoot frigate, or activate your own module. You surely can deal with a single frigate? There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.