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) |
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:58:55 -
[1411] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote: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?
CSM is only a Sounding board to CCP
would be very to nothing to there feedback under the NDA
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:58:57 -
[1412] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Trollceptors are only an issue if the space is vacant - active areas can just undock almost any single ship to just sit at zero.
To just sit at zero and do..what? Sit there with a 20/80M link fitted just to borrow a little time and wait for the interceptor's support fleet to pass by and shoot him down, while the interceptor is still pretty much untouchable at 100km@5000m/s ? (OR also play that interceptor game resulting in a stalemate) I'm with the voices asking to limit those links to battleship or at least battlecruiser sized ships. (Black Ops could increase in application value that way, too) So suddenly THEY have a support fleet closer than you do...in your home system that your trying to defend during your primetime?
You don't deserve your sov. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11975
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:58:58 -
[1413] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: 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.
And you're not listening, as per your usual you're just restating your basic point over and over again as though it meant something in the first place.
It's not that big of a deal. Interceptors have relatively pathetic dps, and they can't actually engage a contesting defender if they're in anything heavier than a cruiser.
There are a lot of reasons interceptors need to be nerfed. But this change does little more than serve as a platform to bring that point up to CCP.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Viserion Pavarius
RESET. Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:59:12 -
[1414] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The system is surprisingly good overall, but I see one critical problem: the price of Entosis links are low enough to allow trolling. I mean you park a throwaway ship next to the structure or command node and go AFK. If no one responds, you forced the owners into a command node whack-a-mole or took their home. If someone shows up, you lost a worthless ship.
We know that jump beacon gankers can kill capitals in the enemy staging system with 200+ in local, because everyone minds his own business. The VFK beacon was infamous for it. The same thing will happen here: a single attacker can take the IHUB from 200+ "defenders" as no one will interrupt his gameplay for a 30M kill report. So an FC must sit 4 hours every day on defense duty, grabbing players into the extremely boring job of "do N jumps because the station there is pinged, just to pop a single T1 cruiser. Now do N jump back, because the IHUB is on fire".
The problem is the extreme difference of risk on the sides: if the "attack" succeeds, the defender loses his home. If the "attack" fails, the attacker loses a T1 cruiser.
This can be fixed by increasing the price of the Entosis link enough to make Entosis kill reports a prized goal of PvP-ers. Like 500M, so defending home would be a wanted PvP event instead of a chore no one wants.
Even when Goblin is mainly known for his strong autism, he sometimes catches up the right points.
I never though i would +1 a gevlon post but i finally did it. Sov changes are somehow magic, aren't they? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
801
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:59:20 -
[1415] - Quote
This is hilarious.
I have visions of 500 shitfit interceptors orbiting at stupidkm/s and a single defender linking the target and the inty FC foaming at the mouth over why it wont count down.
Also, all these hilarious fits - missile speed rigged golem/raven says hello. Even at a a mighty 10-20dps it'll wear them down. See, I can EFT dumbass crap up too. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:59:38 -
[1416] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote: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?
I'd say having enough people committed to putting in the effort should count more than the skill points they've got to throw at it, at the very least. Yes, obviously, having more experience and options in the game will make it easier for you to beat the other guy and take his space or hold your own, but it shouldn't be impossible to do it without the big toys. |
Aineko Macx
331
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:59:56 -
[1417] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote: I feel like the 4 hour window is to short. (I would recommend 6) Even with 6 hour windows there would never be a US vs. RUS war with real consequences anymore. And it still sucks to be a player outside of the window. The only option being to look for an alliance that matches your TZ. Which on a macro scale means the end of multi-TZ (and multi-cultural) alliances, and the start of the focused single-TZ blocks (minimizing vulnerability by not having weak TZs at all).
iveeCrest: A PHP library for CREST || iveeCore: The PHP library for industrial activities
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4995
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:00:02 -
[1418] - Quote
I've had a couple of people asking why I haven't commented. so here's the reason, and comments:
Reason: When it comes to Sov, I'm a completely outsider. I can comment on things like people saying 'Large battles are really dull to fight in' , but not so much on the day to day living in Sov. While I did comment on things as I saw them, everything was prefixed with "I don't live in null, so take with a dose of salt"
Comments: The changes look (from an outsider perspective) promising. That they'll up the quantity of conflict in Null, and hopefully push towards a balkanized Eve. I see both of these as good. While huge coalitions are 'efficient', they're not 'fun'. And big battles may be good for marketing, but they're not so good for the players relegated to being F1 monkeys.
I want to see changes with the industry index (and with mining in general, though that's a far bigger change than just changing what adjusts the indexes) but I don't see it as a blocking problem.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Eli Porter
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:00:52 -
[1419] - Quote
Obvious "Prime Time" issue aside, there needs to be more risk involved with Entosis.
I hope the module uses like 5k PG so only BC and above could use it. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1558
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:01:33 -
[1420] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: 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.
And you're not listening, as per your usual you're just restating your basic point over and over again as though it meant something in the first place. It's not that big of a deal. Interceptors have relatively pathetic dps, and they can't actually engage a contesting defender if they're in anything heavier than a cruiser. There are a lot of reasons interceptors need to be nerfed. But this change does little more than serve as a platform to bring that point up to CCP. So, your point is you do not generally like interceptors? And nothing to do with this thread in any way otherwise? Thank you for sharing that with us.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:01:46 -
[1421] - Quote
afkalt wrote:This is hilarious.
I have visions of 500 shitfit interceptors orbiting at stupidkm/s and a single defender linking the target and the inty FC foaming at the mouth over why it wont count down.
Also, all these hilarious fits - missile speed rigged golem/raven says hello. Even at a a mighty 10-20dps it'll wear them down. And even if that's the case, if you just have, say, 11 guys, 1 to use his own module on the station and the other 10 to be in, say, instacanes which spread out evenly to cover the station etc in an even sphere, one of them will eventually get off a shot and blow him up.
Or any variant thereof. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10036
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:02:00 -
[1422] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: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.
This is the standard mistake people make when judging others motivations. The unrealistically optimistic types (that always think anything is a great idea lol) don't understand that criticism of an idea need not be tied to selfish motivation.
For example, I think the new system will be a worse disaster than Dominion:
- Too many moving parts (the more moving parts, the more likely people will find flaws they can exploit, Faction Warfare is the perfect example)
-The wrong 'focus' (it's like it's trying to turn null sec , which is organized fleet space, into low sec, which is small gang space, CCP doesn't seem to understand that many null sec types are 'soldier' personalities that tent to like big fleets rather than the 'gladiator/pugilist' personalities that inhabit wormhole and low sec space and like small gangs and solo)
-Really bad assumptions about what people want (even in a video game, people, especially null people, don't want 'fun' and 'lots of fights' they want power)
-Not seeming to learn from the past (I'm being totally honest when i say the language used in this dev blog reminds me of Dominion) Quote: Sovereignty Evolves
The system of territorial control in EVE advances, providing more tactical, capture-based gameplay. Alliances both large and small will find more opportunities within their grasp and an engaging conquest system in place to seize them. Rulers will now have to actively defend space they have claimed.
If that sounds familiar, it should....
It's not about maintaining the status quo. It's about wanting to not be on the same Merry Go round for another 6 years.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
801
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:02:34 -
[1423] - Quote
Eli Porter wrote:Obvious "Prime Time" issue aside, there needs to be more risk involved with Entosis.
I hope the module uses like 5k PG so only BC and above could use it.
Why? Just park a bigger boat to defend it.
How are people not getting this?
Attackers bring 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 links.
Defenders bring 1
Result? Stalemate. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
431
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:03:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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.
You guys still don't get it? There's nothing in this game more valuable than fights. Go look in C5 space, literally oozing true apex-level ISK just waiting to be farmed, and yet it's a deserted wasteland- and the reason is that nobody enjoys 23/7 NPC grinding, no matter how much it pays.
My chair is soaking wet at the thought of non-stop PVP during my prime time, it's like FW but not only limited to T1 frigs. |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:04:02 -
[1425] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:I've had a couple of people asking why I haven't commented. so here's the reason, and comments:
Reason: When it comes to Sov, I'm a completely outsider. I can comment on things like people saying 'Large battles are really dull to fight in' , but not so much on the day to day living in Sov. While I did comment on things as I saw them, everything was prefixed with "I don't live in null, so take with a dose of salt"
Comments: The changes look (from an outsider perspective) promising. That they'll up the quantity of conflict in Null, and hopefully push towards a balkanized Eve. I see both of these as good. While huge coalitions are 'efficient', they're not 'fun'. And big battles may be good for marketing, but they're not so good for the players relegated to being F1 monkeys.
I want to see changes with the industry index (and with mining in general, though that's a far bigger change than just changing what adjusts the indexes) but I don't see it as a blocking problem.
Way to toe the company line m8. someone get this man another trip to iceland. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:04:11 -
[1426] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: -The wrong 'focus' (it's like it's trying to turn null sec , which is organized fleet space, into low sec, which is small gang space, CCP doesn't seem to understand that many null sec types are 'soldier' personalities that tent to like big fleets rather than the 'gladiator/pugilist' personalities that inhabit wormhole and low sec space and like small gangs and solo)
This is a good point. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11975
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:04:38 -
[1427] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: So, your point is you do not generally like interceptors? And nothing to do with this thread in any way otherwise? Thank you for sharing that with us.
And once again, you prove that you can't actually read. You go right on with your ignorance, I haven't the time.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:05:02 -
[1428] - Quote
Eli Porter wrote:I hope the module uses like 5k PG so only BC and above could use it.
Man, what battlecruisers are you flying? |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:08:18 -
[1429] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:Arrendis wrote:Cr Turist wrote: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? I'd say having enough people committed to putting in the effort should count more than the skill points they've got to throw at it, at the very least. Yes, obviously, having more experience and options in the game will make it easier for you to beat the other guy and take his space or hold your own, but it shouldn't be impossible to do it without the big toys. and after all these post we finally agree
Well, that's rather the point of discussion, now isn't it? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1456
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:09:02 -
[1430] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: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. Trollceptors are only an issue if the space is vacant - active areas can just undock almost any single ship to just sit at zero. Mittani.com is trying to justify this as an issue because goons sit on a ton of unused sov and it will be an issue for THEM. I referenced the Trollceptor from TMC but I'm not attempting to parrot their view. I agree that that this would cause issues for them, but it would also cause issues for those seeking to take their Sov (i.e. Goons could just use Trollceptors for defense), so that doesn't automatically invalidate the point.
If you allow 'Ceptors (or any ship really, but they seem like the most likely ship to use) to use Entosis links to capture Sov with virtually no risk involved, then you haven't removed the mindless N+1 grind from Sov warfare, you've just replaced it with another one. Not to mention, it rather blatantly breaks the whole concept of risk vs. reward. Ships that are contesting Sov, be they attackers or defenders, should be at risk. Trollceptors won't be.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1987
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:09:06 -
[1431] - Quote
Kah'Les 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? 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.
Sorry but the subscription and population numbers do not agree with you. Neither CCP seems. So you are defeated.. EVOLVE or die.
"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
1559
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:09:09 -
[1432] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: So, your point is you do not generally like interceptors? And nothing to do with this thread in any way otherwise? Thank you for sharing that with us.
And once again, you prove that you can't actually read. You go right on with your ignorance, I haven't the time. You have proven over thousand of troll posts to have ample time, what you do not have is a valid argument. I do, you just didn't bother reading it. You were too busy restating your talking points like a broken record.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:11:34 -
[1433] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:-The wrong 'focus' (it's like it's trying to turn null sec , which is organized fleet space, into low sec, which is small gang space, CCP doesn't seem to understand that many null sec types are 'soldier' personalities that tent to like big fleets rather than the 'gladiator/pugilist' personalities that inhabit wormhole and low sec space and like small gangs and solo) Actually, while the occasional big fleet is fun, having more constant fleets going up, returning, picking up reinforcements etc mean that everyone can take a more relaxed attitude to the whole fighting a war thing. No more a "meet up at 2100 eve for a 3 hour standoff for nothing", but "log in, find a fleet that's about to go out, have a quick fight, go back".
As someone who's been in most large wars since before we lost DQPB to karttoon's tomfoolery, I actually think this'll be more enjoyable for most people.
Jenn aSide wrote:-Really bad assumptions about what people want (even in a video game, people, especially null people, don't want 'fun' and 'lots of fights' they want power) Some people might want power, some people just want to be in visceral brawls.
Jenn aSide wrote:-Not seeming to learn from the past (I'm being totally honest when i say the language used in this dev blog reminds me of Dominion) Quote: Sovereignty Evolves
The system of territorial control in EVE advances, providing more tactical, capture-based gameplay. Alliances both large and small will find more opportunities within their grasp and an engaging conquest system in place to seize them. Rulers will now have to actively defend space they have claimed. If that sounds familiar, it should.... It's not about maintaining the status quo. It's about wanting to not be on the same Merry Go round for another 6 years. I think the new system has learned a lot from the mistakes of seleene's system (which actually *needed* a flowchart to be understood; if that isn't a sign a system's bad I don't know what is), and I've tried to think of ways we can get into the same old 2kv2k fights where caps and up are the main thing by which you judge whether or not you'll actually win. I don't think this system will suffer from that.
If you see a way in which it can, however, now'll be a good time to point out specifics. |
Kah'Les
hirr Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:12:08 -
[1434] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Sorry but the subscription and population numbers do not agree with you. Neither CCP seems. So you are defeated.. EVOLVE or die.
And who are you talking for? Where are all these subscribers you are talking about?
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10037
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:12:16 -
[1435] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: That they'll up the quantity of conflict in Null, and hopefully push towards a balkanized Eve. I see both of these as good. While huge coalitions are 'efficient', they're not 'fun'. And big battles may be good for marketing, but they're not so good for the players relegated to being F1 monkeys.
I was just talking about this. "Fun" is relative. What is "F1 monkying" to you is "wow, Im in a big space fleet, this is cool" to someone else. Some people are Gladiators, others or Soldiers.
The problem here is CCP not understanding that there is a fundamental difference between PVPrs who will end up in null and PVPrs who will stay in low sec or live in a wormhole.
I've lived under 2 different Sov systems (this new one will make 3), and the thing that keeps bugging me is that the developers make something intending a certain set of outcomes but what actually happens tends to be the opposite (time to link my all time favorite dev blog here, the one that was meant to make more fighting but actually turned null into a Renters Desert) Quote:Expected consequences
Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec Coalitions will be marginally less stable Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
The problem isn't the intelligence of the developers (those guys are probably smarter than most of us), it's that their way of thinking doesn't quite fit with what they want to happen. You can't gerrymander sandbox players (like EVe players) into a set of behaviors, because sandboxers are the ones who want to DEFY set behavior. You can see this in Faction Warfare which is really just metagaming by a few space rich players/groups with armies of alts on all sides to make themselves more space rich lol.
TL;DR this new system will fail for the same reason Dominion did, you can't herd cats.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:13:09 -
[1436] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:I referenced the Trollceptor from TMC but I'm not attempting to parrot their view. I agree that that this would cause issues for them, but it would also cause issues for those seeking to take their Sov (i.e. Goons could just use Trollceptors for defense), so that doesn't automatically invalidate the point.
If you allow 'Ceptors (or any ship really, but they seem like the most likely ship to use) to use Entosis links to capture Sov with virtually no risk involved, then you haven't removed the mindless N+1 grind from Sov warfare, you've just replaced it with another one. Not to mention, it rather blatantly breaks the whole concept of risk vs. reward. Ships that are contesting Sov, be they attackers or defenders, should be at risk. Trollceptors won't be. If they're using trollceptors for defence you just bring some recons with you and ECM/sensor damp them so they have to come in close/lose their locks. |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:13:13 -
[1437] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: Sorry but the subscription and population numbers do not agree with you. Neither CCP seems. So you are defeated.. EVOLVE or die.
Guess that harder, boring and much more time-stealing mechanics are closer to die than to evolve. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:13:14 -
[1438] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: So, your point is you do not generally like interceptors? And nothing to do with this thread in any way otherwise? Thank you for sharing that with us.
And once again, you prove that you can't actually read. You go right on with your ignorance, I haven't the time. You have proven over thousand of troll posts to have ample time, what you do not have is a valid argument. I do, you just didn't bother reading it. You were too busy restating your talking points like a broken record.
Code. doesn't have valid arguments. |
Mikami Ibitsu
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:13:25 -
[1439] - Quote
How about having some alert sounds when inside stations of the systems being contested?
Some Incursion-like mood setting to make it more emersive would be a very cool thing to experience.
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:13:33 -
[1440] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Trollceptors are only an issue if the space is vacant - active areas can just undock almost any single ship to just sit at zero.
To just sit at zero and do..what? Sit there with a 20/80M link fitted just to borrow a little time and wait for the interceptor's support fleet to pass by and shoot him down, while the interceptor is still pretty much untouchable at 100km@5000m/s ? (OR also play that interceptor game resulting in a stalemate) I'm with the voices asking to limit those links to battleship or at least battlecruiser sized ships. (Black Ops could increase in application value that way, too) So suddenly THEY have a support fleet closer than you do...in your home system that your trying to defend during your primetime? You don't deserve your sov.
THEY only need ONE such fleet, because they can freely pick from the pool of X contesting ships OR completely ignore them and be happy with RFing 100-X structures.
The defending fleet(s) would have to be on red alert for ALL their link-contesting ships at the same time and make sure they arrive in time to prevent the loss - which in turn leads to the stalemate situation of having to use equally fast cep's for contesting the links.
The initiative is completely with the aggressor in this scenario. |
|
|
|
|
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 |