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) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
822
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:53:43 -
[2461] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:afkalt wrote:Eli Apol wrote:If it immediately hard resets then suddenly falcon screws up absolutely EVERY capture attempt whether by trollceptors or battleships (exception for ewar immune marauders and caps) So definitely not a hard reset. A slow tick down that could be accelerated by a defensive link seems do-able - it still requires the defenders to arrive and deter the attackers but means that a troll fleet could be more easily ignored. Actually it quite explicitly says what it does in the situation of no links active and what then happens at the end of the prime time window if the item is not under full control. That is - no links from either side: Paused. Contested at window end: Remains vulnerable until a conclusion is reached. Yep I'm aware of how it works currently - I wouldn't be averse to a slow tick down (maybe half or quarter speed) in the defences favour if NO links are left on it (1 link each still results in a pause)
I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though. Is 9.9 minutes of their day really too much? No-one is asking them to spend hours per object. Hell, use a cynoalt with a T1 link.
I don't think asking guys to spend less than 10 minutes is wholly unreasonable to secure a SOV structure. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11991
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:54:25 -
[2462] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: A hard reset means you just suicide a group of ewar frigs against them every 40 minutes and restart the whole process. Definitely not.
*shrugs*
I fail to see why anyone would think that the burden of effort is intended to be completely removed from the attacker.
If this doesn't end up with a timer or reset, I'll be very surprised.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11995
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:56:51 -
[2463] - Quote
afkalt wrote: I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.
They are. That's why the attacker is dead.
I have still not seen a reason why you think the attacker's influence should remain even after they totally failed a reinforce attempts.
Quote: No-one is asking them to spend hours per object.
That's actually exactly what you're asking them to do. Either defend the TCU 24/7, or come back for four hours per structure every day forever.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
523
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:57:44 -
[2464] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Eli Apol wrote:afkalt wrote:Eli Apol wrote:If it immediately hard resets then suddenly falcon screws up absolutely EVERY capture attempt whether by trollceptors or battleships (exception for ewar immune marauders and caps) So definitely not a hard reset. A slow tick down that could be accelerated by a defensive link seems do-able - it still requires the defenders to arrive and deter the attackers but means that a troll fleet could be more easily ignored. Actually it quite explicitly says what it does in the situation of no links active and what then happens at the end of the prime time window if the item is not under full control. That is - no links from either side: Paused. Contested at window end: Remains vulnerable until a conclusion is reached. Yep I'm aware of how it works currently - I wouldn't be averse to a slow tick down (maybe half or quarter speed) in the defences favour if NO links are left on it (1 link each still results in a pause) I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though. Is 9.9 minutes of their day really too much? No-one is asking them to spend hours per object. Hell, use a cynoalt with a T1 link. I don't think asking guys to spend less than 10 minutes is wholly unreasonable to secure a SOV structure.
Unless theres someone on that same grid practically uncatchable trying to grief your corp/alliance by hacking that structure him/herself. then the inevitable two step can become an eternal dance regardless of the 4 hour vulnerability window.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
227
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:58:51 -
[2465] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: A hard reset means you just suicide a group of ewar frigs against them every 40 minutes and restart the whole process. Definitely not.
*shrugs* I fail to see why anyone would think that the burden of effort is intended to be completely removed from the attacker. If this doesn't end up with a timer or reset, I'll be very surprised. Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.
If you lower that to allow the defender to warp on grid in a disposable frig, jam them out and reset their 40minutes then it results in no-one being forced to fight (and at most just some dead T1 frigs to loot without even risking a 20m module) |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
698
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:00:55 -
[2466] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Terence Bogard wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: However, the difference is, someone took the effort, to combine that information, INTO ONE PLACE.
They. Know. This. Already. Stop harping about your nonsense. Clearly then, you have recently recieved large buffs to null income? No? Well, they either clearly do not, and require more data before implementing changes. Or they have decided the balance is right. I suspect that they require more data, we may be waiting a while then. Umm, itll take more than just data to implement the null income changes. Especially when its needs to be balanced with hisec, and provide meaningful space content. There are a million factors to be considered and it may have to be coupled with an overall industry revamp. It will take time to do it right. That, and the obscene income from goo. Just because grunts dont make trillions, sure as hell doesnt mean no-one down there is. The SRPs ain't being funded by selling sisters probes But this is wildly off topic.
Moons arent that good anymore. Dyspro is about 5b per month, but the rest arent even close. Most are a few hundred a month, hardly worth alliance level operation. It's all in R64s and Cadmium nowadays.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Chirality Tisteloin
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:01:17 -
[2467] - Quote
Interesting concept.
Concerning the prime time: I support the idea that the width of the time window when structures can be reinforced should be tied into occupancy. System boni acquired from usage reduce the time window. Unbonused systems should have rather large window +-6h around the prime time (which becomes a point in time). The exit window should be unaffected by occupancy and tight around prime time (+-2h) To alleviate multi tz concerns: Enable alliances to set a different prime time per constellation? Decay of occupancy bonus with time (taking effect if system becomes unsed)?
Fly smart, Chira.
See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
155
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:01:54 -
[2468] - Quote
Idea to fix "sov is too easy to take now"
Allows to Put Guns on Sov structures.
You will be able to BPC's For them from NPC's in Hi-sec; Concord LP store for isk only no lp. 5 run BPC for 100 mil isk
Sov Guns will be Drifter Wepon Based tech sleeper what ever.
250 km optimal
200 dps, all damage types, infinite tracking.
they will have 2 mil EHP and can be just killed/blaped
50 mil building cost from PI mats.
We should be able to put just few like 3-5 max
Boom Sov is no longer super easy to take, no need to limit sov link module to hulls, every one is happy. Sov is no longer super easy to take and we have another cool ISK sink and buff to PI.
And people are forced to take a small fleet of eaven t1 cruisers to take the sov And you are still able to reinforce every thing is there are no guns on sov structures !
All cool, PLz Fooozziieee |
Lord TGR
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
205
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:03:44 -
[2469] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.
They are. That's why the attacker is dead. I have still not seen a reason why you think the attacker's influence should remain even after they totally failed a reinforce attempts. Quote: No-one is asking them to spend hours per object.
That's actually exactly what you're asking them to do. Either defend the TCU 24/7, or come back for four hours per structure every day forever. He's hung up on "THE OWNER" = the alliance the object's connected to.
If he thinks the game'll get better if someone has to constantly run around and spend x minutes to reset a structure's timer or setting, that's one thing, but I see no problems with enabling someone to hold f.ex the TCU, someone else hold the IHUB, another the station etc, and not requiring all 3 to pop by if the people who are living there fend off the attacker successfully.
I mean, we could of course do something silly like create an alliance called the greater co-prosperity sphere and stick tons of people in there, instead of having all these silly alliance names, and have the defenders be "the owners". |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
140
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:03:50 -
[2470] - Quote
This thread needs an index to cover points made, 123 pages is kinda tl:dr for many ideas and questions. Mine for example is:
Wont "prime time" sov mechanics lead to regional (time zone)specific corps and alliances? That is, just because the corps A,b,c of alliance WorldOfGamers are in pacific time, and corps X,Y,Z are in greenwich time wouldn't it put half of the corps out of their "prime time?"
I quite like being in a very diverse corp, in a very diverse alliance, where nationality means nothing ( except during world cup).
Real eyes Realize Real Lies
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
227
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:04:11 -
[2471] - Quote
Chirality Tisteloin wrote: To alleviate multi tz concerns: Enable alliances to set a different prime time per constellation? This idea keeps on coming up and it's nice in theory for the AU tz guys IF they can persuade their leadership to agree... but unless those AU tz guys are the only ones using that space during the 24hr window it's more than likely not going to be the optimal defence.
I prefer the idea that larger alliances get larger windows, forcing them to fragment or defend across a wider band (also sov bonuses are only applicable to the owning alliance in system to prevent buffer alliances for a multitude of smaller windows) |
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:04:51 -
[2472] - Quote
I do not see this changing how sov war is actually conducted. Shooting sov structures only occurs after the war is already won. swapping shooting a sov structure with missiles to shooting the sov structure/cap point with an entosis module doesnt change how the wars are actually fought. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
315
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:05:37 -
[2473] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.
They are. That's why the attacker is dead.
You seem to have a bit of difficulty grasping the difference between actual owners (i.e. the sovholding alliance) and the whole defending party (i.e. coalition, blues, whatever). |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1998
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:06:23 -
[2474] - Quote
Super Stallion wrote:I do not see this changing how sov war is actually conducted. Shooting sov structures only occurs after the war is already won. swapping shooting a sov structure with missiles to shooting the sov structure/cap point with an entosis module doesnt change how the wars are actually fought.
There will be WAY less structures to shoot. The structure grind at the end will be a mere formality.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1618
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:07:58 -
[2475] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:afkalt wrote: I've still not seen a reason that owners should not have to take action though.
They are. That's why the attacker is dead. I have still not seen a reason why you think the attacker's influence should remain even after they totally failed a reinforce attempts. Quote: No-one is asking them to spend hours per object.
That's actually exactly what you're asking them to do. Either defend the TCU 24/7, or come back for four hours per structure every day forever.
Why the hell do you think you deserve to hold SOV if you can't deal with inties in your systems especially with the timezone lockout? If you only have enough people to defend 3 systems then how about you stop trying to control more than 3? You don't need a supercap fleet around the clock, you need a few dudes in your self determined prime time to counter a few trolls throwing 100 mill KM at you. The only reason why it will be stupid if implemented like stated right now is the BS 250km range on the module. |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
228
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:08:19 -
[2476] - Quote
Super Stallion wrote:I do not see this changing how sov war is actually conducted. Shooting sov structures only occurs after the war is already won. swapping shooting a sov structure with missiles to shooting the sov structure/cap point with an entosis module doesnt change how the wars are actually fought.
look as the last war between Goonswarm Federation and Test Alliance Please ignore as a reference For the initial RF fight, you're correct. For the actual defence of an RF'd structure the war now needs to be fought across many different battlefields concurrently with the defender having upto a 4x advantage in capture speed. |
Terence Bogard
Kanetrain Confederacy
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:09:20 -
[2477] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Welcome to eveafkcloakycamping online.
Going thru with this until afk clocky camping is solved will kill all the point of living in nullsec. I mean, I'm still gonna be doing pew there, but since disruption is going to be a major thing, we will see easily over 20x rise in afk cloaky camping.
My thoughts on issue are simple: afk cloaky camping is 100% disruption of any non-deadspace activity in a system. Trolls and stupids can argue on that, they are going to be ignored anyway, as long there is no way to survive hotdrop other than not undocking, it'll be that way.
So, every system in a "targeted" region is going to have an afk cloaker in it, there is no meaningful defense against it, thus we can assume ratings are always 0-1 and don't mean anything anyway, as it takes just 1 afk cloaker to make them decay to nothing.
Next major thing is a permanent 4 hours long CTA every day with no weekend or vacation. As if current ones weren't disgusting enough.
Industry rating is about an order of magnitude harder to get and maintain. I couldn't imagine why it got the same influence as military rating (which is a total joke, a week ago just 2 dudes bumped it from 3 to 5 in one evening right before my eyes, while watching a movie), until I saw it's Fozzie who's responsible for this, and it kinda made sense - every time this pile of Fozzie touches some part of industry, the said part takes a nosedive, sometimes into non-existence.
Also, industry rating is an order of magnitude easier to disrupt as well, since barges all barges but 2 are completely defenseless, and both of the 2 are pretty much nonviable in mining (thanks to Fozzie as well, of course).
Overall this might be making eve more of an eve, but nullsec is going to lose a lot of population with this. It is a SPECTACULAR failure to shake the blue donut, while areas which already have too much pew going on are going to get even harsher.
If this goes through like this, see me afk cloaking in Deklein. With one account, the rest become useless, unless I move into hisec with them to have at least some way to make ISK in its nerfed state.
Please take this useless post to the afk cloaking thread. The whole point of this stuff is to encourage group play and protection of said ratters as it is in the best interest of the defense of your space. Were you even paying attention?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11999
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:09:22 -
[2478] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.
Quite the opposite, actually. It encourages any prospective attacker to spread out as much as possible, and fight as little as possible, since the cycle time on these things is so incredibly low.
It actively discourages defensive fighting pre-reinforce. Which, in turn, basically puts a four hour per structure time tax on the defender.
I elaborated this earlier. I can get a separate monitor, put up a few clients on it with an "afk" cloaked ship each, wait until I have two minutes, reinforce half a dozen structures(because let's not even pretend that is feasible or reasonable to tell people to defend a system 24/7. That's not a game, that's a job), and then they have to guard each and every one for four hours to make sure I don't show up and cap their **** like I'm sniping an Ebay auction.
That is the optimal sov capture method. Barely more effort than afk cloaking, and I can capture sov from even determined defenders after a little while, since eventually they will get tired of it or their wives will kill them.
And then you'd have the Republic of Kaarous, and I didn't fight anybody to get it. At least until someone wanted to take it from me, then we'd take turns trolling each other until somebody gives up.
That's what made me laugh about the "weaponize boredom" line.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
228
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:11:46 -
[2479] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.
Quite the opposite, actually. It encourages any prospective attacker to spread out as much as possible, and fight as little as possible, since the cycle time on these things is so incredibly low Yep the initiative is with the attackers, exactly what I said. Even after the cycle time they have to stay on grid for another 10-40minutes AFTER the first cycle.
Defenders HAVE to react which enables the attackers to attack them or move on.
Solo PvPers could fit a link and force someone to undock and come on grid with them wherever they like (provided it's within the primetime) |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11999
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:12:38 -
[2480] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Why the hell do you think you deserve to hold SOV if you can't deal with inties in your systems especially with the timezone lockout?
Why the hell do they think they deserve to hold sov if all they do is troll me with interceptors?
Quote: If you only have enough people to defend 3 systems then how about you stop trying to control more than 3?
Hey, that's a great idea that nobody ever though of before! Oh, wait, except that it's impossible to do given the current income system. I'd be able to support about ten players with 3 systems.
Great plan, bro.
That's what a bunch of my posts in this thread have been about, by the way. This MUST be accompanied with a full rework of individual level income in nullsec space.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
228
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:15:09 -
[2481] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hey, that's a great idea that nobody ever though of before! Oh, wait, except that it's impossible to do given the current income system. I'd be able to support about ten players with 3 systems. Great plan, bro. That's what a bunch of my posts in this thread have been about, by the way. This MUST be accompanied with a full rework of individual level income in nullsec space. And the plans for income changes haven't been released yet (presumably phase 3)
Instead of gifting 10b/moon to the alliance execs passively it would be nice for a bottom up income to go to the line members through actively needing to mine the moons and have ships in space (which could also add to the industry indices) |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
179
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:19:41 -
[2482] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Violent Morgana wrote:So I have gang of 20 ceptors, fit for extreme speed (20km/s for example and 150km locking range) and t2 Entosis Link. Who/What can stop my gang from reinforcing the whole region? The module needs to either disable any prop mods or make the ship stationary like siege does. That will give you the fights you are trying to force.
Also whats up with this prime time? Should we only have USTZ alliance, EUTZ alliance etc in huge blocks focused on very specific 4hour window in time? 20 (or fewer) Kitsunes. So thats 2bil in intys countered by 400mil in ewar frigs.
Or you could use 20 Rifters and save yourself a couple hundred million ISK.
Remember - they can't reinforce it, if you have it linked up too. You don't HAVE to kill the attacker. Just deny him sole control of the field.
That said, kill him anway, if you can, because you can.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
275
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:19:44 -
[2483] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.
Quite the opposite, actually. It encourages any prospective attacker to spread out as much as possible, and fight as little as possible, since the cycle time on these things is so incredibly low. It actively discourages defensive fighting pre-reinforce. Which, in turn, basically puts a four hour per structure time tax on the defender. I elaborated this earlier. I can get a separate monitor, put up a few clients on it with an "afk" cloaked ship each, wait until I have two minutes, reinforce half a dozen structures(because let's not even pretend that is feasible or reasonable to tell people to defend a system 24/7. That's not a game, that's a job), and then they have to guard each and every one for four hours to make sure I don't show up and cap their **** like I'm sniping an Ebay auction. That is the optimal sov capture method. Barely more effort than afk cloaking, and I can capture sov from even determined defenders after a little while, since eventually they will get tired of it or their wives will kill them. And then you'd have the Republic of Kaarous, and I didn't fight anybody to get it. At least until someone wanted to take it from me, then we'd take turns trolling each other until somebody gives up. That's what made me laugh about the "weaponize boredom" line.
And this is precisely why the whole proposal is incredibly, ridiculously weak when it comes to risk-reward and game balance. Even worse, I'm not seeing an easy to way to make this workable. It would probably take less time to modify the existing mechanics and increase the null-sec life benefits to make this non-sense workable.
I'm betting that the majority of CSM already said no when this was revealed to them.
Sometimes, I feel as if my words are falling short to describe the level of incompetency here. I thought before, when the pre-Phoebe blog hit, that this shortsighted and shallow approach was an issue specifically with Greyscale. However, now I fully realize that it is not something that is isolated to Greyscale.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:21:37 -
[2484] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Chirality Tisteloin wrote:Interesting concept. Concerning the prime time: I support the idea that the width of the time window when structures can be reinforced should be tied into occupancy. System boni acquired from usage reduce the time window. Unbonused systems should have rather large window +-6h around the prime time (which becomes a point in time). The exit window should be unaffected by occupancy and tight around prime time (+-2h) Fly smart, Chira. And why not scale it regarding to alliance members number from 2 hours to 10. Something like that : - 2 hours for <100 members - 4 hours for < 500 - 6 hours for < 1k - 8 hours for < 5k - 10 hours for > 5k I think also RF duration should be lowered to only one day to allow more battle on week-end and holydays for people not single / unemployed / not student.
This would create an artificial cap on alliance size and as has been pointed out many times before, artificial caps just lead to "MyAwesomeAlliance1" MyAwesomeAlliance2" MyAwesomeAlliance3" and so on.
|
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:21:46 -
[2485] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Super Stallion wrote:I do not see this changing how sov war is actually conducted. Shooting sov structures only occurs after the war is already won. swapping shooting a sov structure with missiles to shooting the sov structure/cap point with an entosis module doesnt change how the wars are actually fought.
look as the last war between Goonswarm Federation and Test Alliance Please ignore as a reference For the initial RF fight, you're correct. For the actual defence of an RF'd structure the war now needs to be fought across many different battlefields concurrently with the defender having upto a 4x advantage in capture speed.
But, by the time an alliance is entering the phase where they are spreading out along the constellation to capture points the war is already in the clean up stages. If not, then that alliance is doing it wrong. The war has already been fought, and won, before capture speed and all of the other clean up operations proposed begin to be engaged.
I am really trying to see this working out, but I think the game designers need to place more emphasis onto how a war is actually won... not how to clean up the existing structures. These are two fundamentally different concepts.
I see changes to forcing a fight, and cleaning up structures. I do not see changes to how sov wars are actually fought today. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11999
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:22:09 -
[2486] - Quote
afkalt wrote: I'd LOVE to see these "mighty trollceptors" deal with a simple maulus/caracal combination.
The issue is, as is obvious, not actually killing them.
It's that, since it only takes two minutes to complete a reinforce (which then forces you into a four hour sitdown on the structure), that you functionally would need to have said Caracal and Maulus sitting 50km off of the structure literally all the time.
Idk about you, but I missed the memo where EVE is supposed to be a job instead of a game.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Papa Django
CosmoTeK LTD La Division Bleue
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:23:36 -
[2487] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote: This would create an artificial cap on alliance size and as has been pointed out many times before, artificial caps just lead to "MyAwesomeAlliance1" MyAwesomeAlliance2" MyAwesomeAlliance3" and so on.
I see no issue with that.
People defending must be the real owners so ...
The goal is to localize conflicts and break big renting block. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1618
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:24:31 -
[2488] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Why the hell do you think you deserve to hold SOV if you can't deal with inties in your systems especially with the timezone lockout?
Why the hell do they think they deserve to hold sov if all they do is troll me with interceptors? Quote: If you only have enough people to defend 3 systems then how about you stop trying to control more than 3?
Hey, that's a great idea that nobody ever though of before! Oh, wait, except that it's impossible to do given the current income system. I'd be able to support about ten players with 3 systems. Great plan, bro. That's what a bunch of my posts in this thread have been about, by the way. This MUST be accompanied with a full rework of individual level income in nullsec space.
I never said they deserve to hold SOV and if you are actually trying to defend your SOV, at best they will trigger the "king of the PLEX" event and lose it thus never actually own any SOV. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
823
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:25:01 -
[2489] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Eli Apol wrote: Current method at least offers some initiative to the attackers to actually start a meaningful fight as the defender has to come on grid and push them off or remain on grid with them whilst risking a 20m module on even their cheapest ship.
Quite the opposite, actually. It encourages any prospective attacker to spread out as much as possible, and fight as little as possible, since the cycle time on these things is so incredibly low. It actively discourages defensive fighting pre-reinforce. Which, in turn, basically puts a four hour per structure time tax on the defender. I elaborated this earlier. I can get a separate monitor, put up a few clients on it with an "afk" cloaked ship each, wait until I have two minutes, reinforce half a dozen structures(because let's not even pretend that is feasible or reasonable to tell people to defend a system 24/7. That's not a game, that's a job), and then they have to guard each and every one for four hours to make sure I don't show up and cap their **** like I'm sniping an Ebay auction. That is the optimal sov capture method. Barely more effort than afk cloaking, and I can capture sov from even determined defenders after a little while, since eventually they will get tired of it or their wives will kill them. And then you'd have the Republic of Kaarous, and I didn't fight anybody to get it. At least until someone wanted to take it from me, then we'd take turns trolling each other until somebody gives up. That's what made me laugh about the "weaponize boredom" line. And this is precisely why the whole proposal is incredibly, ridiculously weak when it comes to risk-reward and game balance. Even worse, I'm not seeing an easy to way to make this workable. It would probably take less time to modify the existing mechanics and increase the null-sec life benefits to make this non-sense workable. I'm betting that the majority of CSM already said no when this was revealed to them. Sometimes, I feel as if my words are falling short to describe the level of incompetency here. I thought before, when the pre-Phoebe blog hit, that this shortsighted and shallow approach was an issue specifically with Greyscale. However, now I fully realize that it is not something that is isolated to Greyscale.
It would be, if that was remotely how the system worked.
But it's not, is it?
Not at all.
You have a 4 hour window. You have a MINIMUM of 12 minutes to RF a structure, potentially 42 minutes. All this time you can't warp and have an 80m module strapped to your hull. Still sound like a good idea if the locals are active?
tl;dr: You don't need to watch jack 24/7. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1998
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:25:10 -
[2490] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Chirality Tisteloin wrote:Interesting concept. Concerning the prime time: I support the idea that the width of the time window when structures can be reinforced should be tied into occupancy. System boni acquired from usage reduce the time window. Unbonused systems should have rather large window +-6h around the prime time (which becomes a point in time). The exit window should be unaffected by occupancy and tight around prime time (+-2h) Fly smart, Chira. And why not scale it regarding to alliance members number from 2 hours to 10. Something like that : - 2 hours for <100 members - 4 hours for < 500 - 6 hours for < 1k - 8 hours for < 5k - 10 hours for > 5k I think also RF duration should be lowered to only one day to allow more battle on week-end and holydays for people not single / unemployed / not student.
ANY and all mechanics that scale on number of members can be circuvented by spliting alliance in Joe's alliance 1 and Joe's alliance 2
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
|
|
|
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 |